2 Billion Years Unchanged, Bacteria Pose an Evolutionary Puzzle

[revelarts]

2 Billion Years Unchanged, Bacteria Pose an Evolutionary Puzzle

Quote:


<tbody>
Wedged inside rocks in the deep sea off the coast of Western Australia lurks an organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years, scientists say.

From this deep-sea location, a team of researchers collected fossilized sulfur bacteria that was 1.8 billion years old and compared it to bacteria that lived in the same region 2.3 billion years ago. Both sets of microbes were indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found off the coast of Chile.

But do the findings contradict Darwin's theory of evolution?

"It seems astounding that [this] life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years — nearly half the history of the Earth," the study's leader, J. William Schopf, a paleobiologist at UCLA, said in a statement. "Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained."

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection states that all species develop from heritable genetic changes that make an individual better able to survive in its environment and reproduce.

So how can Darwin's theory account for these apparently nonchanging bacteria? The answer comes in looking at the bacteria's similarly stable surroundings. True, the deep-sea bacteria in this study haven't changed for eons, but neither has their environment, Schopf said. Darwin's theory doesn't call for organisms to evolve unless their environment changes, so the microbes' lack of evolution is consistent with the theory, Schopf added.

To compare the fossils, Schopf and his colleagues used a method known as Raman spectroscopy to measure the composition and chemistry of the rocks. Then, using confocal laser scanning microscopy, they produced 3D images of the fossils and compared these visualizations with the modern bacteria. The ancient microbes looked identical to the present-day ones, the team found....

2 Billion Years Unchanged, Bacteria Pose an Evolutionary Puzzle (http://www.livescience.com/49677-deep-sea-organism-evolution.html)

</tbody>

one article on the discovery says
"2-billion-year-old bacteria that hasn’t evolved is more evidence for evolution: scientists"


soooo, NO Evolution is evidence FOR evolution? really? that's a double think item there.
But it wouldn't be so bad if they would just be consistent.
Because if they had found a mutated bacteria (bacteria changed into... well even just a slightly different bacteria over 2 billion years) it would have been hailed as CONCRETE evidence FOR evolution as well. Seems you can have it both ways in evolutionary "science".

years ago Scientist in Antarctica discovered Lake Vostok. A lake as large as one of the great lakes. They believe it's been covered in ice 2+ miles thick for 15 MILLION years. completely cut off from surface contamination and earths atmosphere. Temps at the surface above the lake have been recorded at -89 degrees Celsius. the water has also been under extreme high pressures, the temps more like the moons of Jupiter.... and no sun light.... for "15 million years".

around 2012 they finally drilled through very carefully to get samples from the lake.

Many Scientist EXPECTED... PREDICTED... that either there would be nothing alive at all because of the harsh conditions. OR that because of the Isolation and the harsh conditions microbes would have evolved to adapt to the alien like environment.

What'd they find?
well bits of genes from microbes, bacteria some multicelled organisms.

Some scientist scoffed saying Impossible they must be from contamination from the drilling. But they finally ruled that out.
then they said well the said well those are fossils and fragments of DNA and RNA. but others quickly pointed out that Nooo, DNA and RNA CANNOT survive 15 million years. it's to fragile. (also applies to the Dino DNA found in the past few years, proves dinosaurs where living 30,000 or less years ago)

So they have fresh samples of these creatures dna rna , so what are they.
Well they categorized about 3500 different kinds and most are the same kinds we know of today, unchanged even though living in an isolated environment for "15 million" years. How many Hundreds of millions of generations of bacteria to you think have been born and died in that lake? MORE than enough to evolve something if it were going to happen. We're told Humans from apelings evolved in less than 5 million years, microbes supposedly need far less time.

So the predictions of evolution were basically wrong.
But the news story at top of post tells us that NO evolution for billions of years in the same environment is now evidence FOR evolution as well.

"war is peace, freedom is slavery"
can't have it both ways can you?


Quote:

<tbody>
...They don't expect water samples from Lake Vostok will hold alien life, though any life it contains may have taken a slightly different evolutionary path than what appears on the planet today. That's because Lake Vostok, the deepest and most isolated of Antarctica's subglacial lakes, has been cut off from the atmosphere for at least 14 million years.

The lakes, which were discovered via satellite imagery in the late 1990s, owe their existence to the thick Antarctic ice, which acts like a blanket to trap heat coming from inside Earth, keeping water liquid.

"If they find evidence of life there — and I do think Lake Vostok has life in it — it's going to be Earth-like," astrobiologist Dale Andersen, with the SETI Institute's Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, told Discovery News.

"It's going to be the same kind of life you find everywhere else. It may be that life has evolved differently, but it's still Earth-like, still based on the same DNA structure," Andersen said.....

Alien Life Clues in Antarctic Ice? : Discovery News (http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/lake-vostok-aliens-121602.htm)

</tbody>


Quote:

<tbody>
After comparing the genetic material they found in Lake Vostok to a database of the known microbes on Earth, the biologists found a remarkable variety of critters. There were organisms known for living in salt water, fresh water, super-hot water and even in the guts and other body parts of tube worms, fish and other animals. There were low amounts of genetic material that appeared to come from animals such as a microscopic crustacean, a marine bivalve and a small sea anemone.

</tbody>

Thousands Of Species Found In Lake Vostok Ice | Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/thousands-species-found-lake-vostok-ice)

Quote:


Over 3500 different species have been identified by a form of statistical analysis known as metagenomics. Basically, they sequenced all the genetic material in their samples at once, and used sophisticated analytical techniques to make sense of the resulting jumble of information. This technique has proven extremely useful in identifying species in an agricultural soil sample, for instance, but this is the first time its use has revealed a whole group of totally novel organisms.

In heading off criticisms, the team addresses the idea that much of this material might be contamination or ancient life lying dead but preserved since the ice was laid down. It’s impossible that the DNA could have persisted this long as a fossil, they say, but it’s even more impossible that the RNA could have; DNA’s older, more fragile sibling constitutes the best of their evidence in favor of living communities in Lake Vostok, as its half-life is far too small to be some molecular window into the past.

Most interesting is that the life they found is not entirely bacterial. Several hundred species of eukaryotic organisms also live in the water, including over 100 multicellular species.

3,500+ species discovered in Lake Vostok, underneath miles of ice, in conditions similar to Jupiter’s Europa | ExtremeTech (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/160667-3500-species-discovered-in-lake-vostok-underneath-miles-of-ice-in-conditions-similar-to-jupiters-europa)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

2 Billion Years Unchanged, Bacteria Pose an Evolutionary Puzzle

Quote:


<tbody>
Wedged inside rocks in the deep sea off the coast of Western Australia lurks an organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years, scientists say.

From this deep-sea location, a team of researchers collected fossilized sulfur bacteria that was 1.8 billion years old and compared it to bacteria that lived in the same region 2.3 billion years ago. Both sets of microbes were indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found off the coast of Chile.

But do the findings contradict Darwin's theory of evolution?

"It seems astounding that [this] life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years — nearly half the history of the Earth," the study's leader, J. William Schopf, a paleobiologist at UCLA, said in a statement. "Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained."

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection states that all species develop from heritable genetic changes that make an individual better able to survive in its environment and reproduce.

So how can Darwin's theory account for these apparently nonchanging bacteria? The answer comes in looking at the bacteria's similarly stable surroundings. True, the deep-sea bacteria in this study haven't changed for eons, but neither has their environment, Schopf said. Darwin's theory doesn't call for organisms to evolve unless their environment changes, so the microbes' lack of evolution is consistent with the theory, Schopf added.

To compare the fossils, Schopf and his colleagues used a method known as Raman spectroscopy to measure the composition and chemistry of the rocks. Then, using confocal laser scanning microscopy, they produced 3D images of the fossils and compared these visualizations with the modern bacteria. The ancient microbes looked identical to the present-day ones, the team found....

2 Billion Years Unchanged, Bacteria Pose an Evolutionary Puzzle (http://www.livescience.com/49677-deep-sea-organism-evolution.html)

</tbody>

one article on the discovery says
"2-billion-year-old bacteria that hasn’t evolved is more evidence for evolution: scientists"


soooo, NO Evolution is evidence FOR evolution? really? that's a double think item there.
But it wouldn't be so bad if they would just be consistent.
Because if they had found a mutated bacteria (bacteria changed into... well even just a slightly different bacteria over 2 billion years) it would have been hailed as CONCRETE evidence FOR evolution as well. Seems you can have it both ways in evolutionary "science".

years ago Scientist in Antarctica discovered Lake Vostok. A lake as large as one of the great lakes. They believe it's been covered in ice 2+ miles thick for 15 MILLION years. completely cut off from surface contamination and earths atmosphere. Temps at the surface above the lake have been recorded at -89 degrees Celsius. the water has also been under extreme high pressures, the temps more like the moons of Jupiter.... and no sun light.... for "15 million years".

around 2012 they finally drilled through very carefully to get samples from the lake.

Many Scientist EXPECTED... PREDICTED... that either there would be nothing alive at all because of the harsh conditions. OR that because of the Isolation and the harsh conditions microbes would have evolved to adapt to the alien like environment.

What'd they find?
well bits of genes from microbes, bacteria some multicelled organisms.

Some scientist scoffed saying Impossible they must be from contamination from the drilling. But they finally ruled that out.
then they said well the said well those are fossils and fragments of DNA and RNA. but others quickly pointed out that Nooo, DNA and RNA CANNOT survive 15 million years. it's to fragile. (also applies to the Dino DNA found in the past few years, proves dinosaurs where living 30,000 or less years ago)

So they have fresh samples of these creatures dna rna , so what are they.
Well they categorized about 3500 different kinds and most are the same kinds we know of today, unchanged even though living in an isolated environment for "15 million" years. How many Hundreds of millions of generations of bacteria to you think have been born and died in that lake? MORE than enough to evolve something if it were going to happen. We're told Humans from apelings evolved in less than 5 million years, microbes supposedly need far less time.

So the predictions of evolution were basically wrong.
But the news story at top of post tells us that NO evolution for billions of years in the same environment is now evidence FOR evolution as well.

"war is peace, freedom is slavery"
can't have it both ways can you?


Quote:

<tbody>
...They don't expect water samples from Lake Vostok will hold alien life, though any life it contains may have taken a slightly different evolutionary path than what appears on the planet today. That's because Lake Vostok, the deepest and most isolated of Antarctica's subglacial lakes, has been cut off from the atmosphere for at least 14 million years.

The lakes, which were discovered via satellite imagery in the late 1990s, owe their existence to the thick Antarctic ice, which acts like a blanket to trap heat coming from inside Earth, keeping water liquid.

"If they find evidence of life there — and I do think Lake Vostok has life in it — it's going to be Earth-like," astrobiologist Dale Andersen, with the SETI Institute's Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, told Discovery News.

"It's going to be the same kind of life you find everywhere else. It may be that life has evolved differently, but it's still Earth-like, still based on the same DNA structure," Andersen said.....

Alien Life Clues in Antarctic Ice? : Discovery News (http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/lake-vostok-aliens-121602.htm)

</tbody>


Quote:

<tbody>
After comparing the genetic material they found in Lake Vostok to a database of the known microbes on Earth, the biologists found a remarkable variety of critters. There were organisms known for living in salt water, fresh water, super-hot water and even in the guts and other body parts of tube worms, fish and other animals. There were low amounts of genetic material that appeared to come from animals such as a microscopic crustacean, a marine bivalve and a small sea anemone.

</tbody>

Thousands Of Species Found In Lake Vostok Ice | Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/thousands-species-found-lake-vostok-ice)

Quote:



3,500+ species discovered in Lake Vostok, underneath miles of ice, in conditions similar to Jupiter’s Europa | ExtremeTech (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/160667-3500-species-discovered-in-lake-vostok-underneath-miles-of-ice-in-conditions-similar-to-jupiters-europa)

Same double think loons use the exact same stupidity to justify the global warming scam.
The world is are up with such mad, raving fooooooools!!!!!
These idiots want to have their damn cake and eat it too!!!
Reality proves they are liars, deluded and indeed crazy but then again look at the gullible under educated masses they are manipulating by using this method of insanity and subterfuge!
All the while stirring up pure righteous contempt and anger from we not so stupid as to believe all that lying tripe!

If such simple organisms did not change in 2 billion years why and how did other organisms do so??? What got me always was any catalyst they vaguely mentioned to justify the need for change had to be so paramount to its survival that in millions/billions of years the changing entity would have died out. They never explain how the need for change(catalyst) which had to be great allowed for such eons of time and how the entity thus survived if the catalyst was that great.
Evolution is pure bunk.. Now they recently scream BIG BANG IS WRONG !
Well hell, I knew that back in 1967 at age 13.....
These people espouse theories that they like(serve a political purpose) as if they are solid fact, when they are far from it..--Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

Evolution does not assert that everything keeps changing and evolving. Everything changes and involves as needed. To better procreate. Bacteria never had any problems reproducing or surviving.

[revelarts]

Evolution does not assert that everything keeps changing and evolving. Everything changes and involves as needed. To better procreate. Bacteria never had any problems reproducing or surviving.

Ok that's fine AC,
but showing CHANGE is the only evidence for evolution, not the opposite.

Darwinist have known since they 1st asserted evolution that there are many things like Horseshoe Crabs, insects and many other creatures that have not changed from the beginning of their appearance in the fossil record 250-800 "million" years ago.
At that time they had to accommodate that fact into their "theory", so to claim it now as evidence for evolution is BS.

And finding living bacteria the same as 2 "billion" years old versions shows the robustness of DNA and genetic stasis. the fact that genes don't mutate even with long stretches of time is a blow against the concept of pliability of genes in general.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ok that's fine AC,
but showing CHANGE is the only evidence for evolution, not the opposite.

Darwinist have known since they 1st asserted evolution that there are many things like Horseshoe Crabs, insects and many other creatures that have not changed from the beginning of their appearance in the fossil record 250-800 "million" years ago.
At that time they had to accommodate that fact into their "theory", so to claim it now as evidence for evolution is BS.

And finding living bacteria the same as 2 "billion" years old versions shows the robustness of DNA and genetic stasis. the fact that genes don't mutate even with long stretches of time is a blow against the concept of pliability of genes in general.


Back then people were not as gullible as millions now are. So they did not claim back then that which looked to disprove Evolution as a factor in it being a valid theory.

What they have never explained is how species that were sent towards change by any catalyst thus had millions of years to effect that great change! For in their theory it was about survival and why change if it is so minor that millions(or even hundreds of thousands) of years the species can survive without that change!??

No sir, the logic and reality denies so much of their premise. Faith in the magic of "eons of time" SERVES THAT PURPOSE.- ;) --Tyr

[sundaydriver]

As the article states; with a stable environment and nutrient supply(sulfates & nitrates) this simple Sulfur bacteria has no further need to evolve. Change either and it will. Does this make me gullible and uneducated to believe this as one poster suggests, maybe? Or maybe it's my dozen years in my micro lab transforming different bacteria to into useful tools?


:poke:

[revelarts]

As the article states; with a stable environment and nutrient supply(sulfates & nitrates) this simple Sulfur bacteria has no further need to evolve. Change either and it will. Does this make me gullible and uneducated to believe this as one poster suggests, maybe? Or maybe it's my dozen years in my micro lab transforming different bacteria to into useful tools?


:poke:


as i stated, they claim it as "evidence for" evolution when it's something everyone knew and observed and predicted before evolution was ever proposed. And that known fact of -stasis over long periods- had to be acknowledged within the theory of evolution when it was proposed. so it's, ummm, disingenuous to claim it as "evidence". Especially when in other cases they do in fact predict evolution/change in isolated stable environments. stable for 15 "million" years in fact.

so call it gullibility if you like. whatever the case it's a snow job.

Like "predicting" that the sun generally rotates on it's axis in some new theory called "Solar Stillness". where the main point of the theory is that the sun literally stops it's rotation from time to time and becomes totally still.
Those who get new more precise measurements of the sun's rotation are not finding an evidence for "Solar Stillness". "See we told you the sun rotates!":rolleyes:

If you or others are impressed by that prediction then gullible might be a word to use, brainwashed might be another. Consumed by the popular "scientific" paradigm so that we don't examine it critically is one i'd support for most folks.

..
..
and sundaydriver, I'd like to hear the outlines of your processes in changing bacteria.
And the types and range of changes.

[sundaydriver]

This little bacteria had probably 900 millions years to evolve to the state it has been for the past 2.3 billion years. It's as perfect as it needs to be due to limited nutrients, entombed inside rocks, and no change in conditions to affect it further. It already has all it needs.

[pete311]

evolution does not arise from need anyway, it's a passive process. sometimes the mutations help, sometimes they hurt. more drivel from revelarts who is desperate to convince a few internet trolls that fact is fiction

[revelarts]

evolution does not arise from need anyway, it's a passive process. sometimes the mutations help, sometimes they hurt. ....

SO Pete ,lets assume you are right,
you're saying "evolution does not arise from need anyway, it's a passive process." meaning it just happens.
so to find a "2 billion" year old bacteria IS odd by your evolutionary standards, even if the environment hasn't changed since evolution is "PASSIVE". the environment is NOT the main or only factor. You seem to be saying there should have been some evolution -helpful or harmful- over 2 billion years.

However the scientist who made the discovery say YOU are wrong, that Darwin "predicts"(:rolleyes:) that some things DO NOT CHANGE AT ALL if the environment doesn't change. That enviro pressures are the key evolutionary factor. But scientist looking at the lake in Antarctica say you're right and predicted based on Darwin's theory that mutations should occur in a stable closed environment.

so which is it?
If it's Both then it predicts NOTHING because it predicts EVERYTHING.

---Evolution happens you fools, look that thing changed slightly that's hard evidence of major change!!!
and look here that thing didn't change at all over billions of years that proves evolution too you fools!!!---

yeah ok, the Sun came up today that'sevidence for evolution too i guess.
But if evolution is not falsifiable then it's not a serious scientific theory, it's just a tautology proving everything, full of 'just so stories'.

[revelarts]

an 21, 2015A rare frilled shark, whose species dates back 80 million years,
was caught in a fishing trawler off Australia's coast.


"It's a freaky thing," Simon Boag, the chief executive officer at South East Trawl Fishing Association, told Australia's ABC Rural. "I don't think you would want to show it to little children before they went to bed."
The association said the frilled shark is often referred to as a "living fossil." It is described as having an eel-like body with three fins on its back. It gets its name from the six pairs of gill slits that give it a fringed appearance.



The sea creature (taxonomically known as Chlamydoselachus anguineus and referred to by some as a "living fossil") is indeed real, an eel-like shark whose ancestry dates back <nobr>80 million</nobr> years.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/info/news/frilledshark.asp#sAlVayUOAcXYRCAl.99

more evidence for evolution sharks that don't change for 80 million years ... because the ocean environment hasn't changed in 80 million years right?



An international team of researchers has decoded the genome of the African coelacanth. The species was once thought to be extinct, but a living coelacanth was discovered off the African coast in 1938. Coelacanths today closely resemble the fossilized skeletons of their more than 300-million-year-old ancestors.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130417131809.htm
Fish 300 million years ... because the ocean environment hasn't changed in 300 million years right?



Horse Shoe Crabs are seen in the fossil record 450 million years ago...Also known as the comb jelly, ctenophores first emerged 700 million years ago. They look like striped jelly blobs that flit through the sea propelled by rows of cilia. Biologists say these are the oldest known animals (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6164/1242592)...
Crab & jelly Fish like thing 450 and 700 million years ... because the ocean environment hasn't changed in 300 million years right?

the sharks and fish live in the deep sea and the ctenophores and horseshoe crabs live in the shallows but the neither environment has changed enough for the "need" to evolve. and nothing in them passively compelled change harmful or helpful.
That's it's evidence for something, but not evolution it'd seem to me.

And here's something else. If we "1st see" these SAME fossil animals so long ago wouldn't that mean that they had to evolve into that over some time. we're told the Cambrian explosion took place apx 500 million years ago where the basic body styles of animals just SHOW UP without any ancestry.

Darwin even admitted along this line,
“Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.”
Charles Darwin

[darin]

evolution does not arise from need anyway, it's a passive process.


Translation: Evolution MAGICALLY happened. just mystical or pure random chance. It's all somehow going on without any sense of need or purpose. We're "lucky" it's happened because I cannot bring myself to accept something that makes more sense. :)

[pete311]

you're saying "evolution does not arise from need anyway, it's a passive process." meaning it just happens.
so to find a "2 billion" year old bacteria IS odd by your evolutionary standards, even if the environment hasn't changed since evolution is "PASSIVE". the environment is NOT the main or only factor. You seem to be saying there should have been some evolution -helpful or harmful- over 2 billion years.

However the scientist who made the discovery say YOU are wrong

What the scientists basically did was look at two pieces of shit. They were both brown and the same size. Must be the same. If they tested the genetics they'd be different. Of course, you'd be disappointed unless the newer bacteria had a head or something. That is your problem.


more evidence for evolution sharks that don't change for 80 million years ... because the ocean environment hasn't changed in 80 million years right?

Fish 300 million years ... because the ocean environment hasn't changed in 300 million years right?

And here's something else. If we "1st see" these SAME fossil animals so long ago wouldn't that mean that they had to evolve into that over some time. we're told the Cambrian explosion took place apx 500 million years ago where the basic body styles of animals just SHOW UP without any ancestry.

Darwin even admitted along this line,
“Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.”
Charles Darwin

I don't understand your point in listing old creatures. They are genetically different even if they look the same. There was little environmental stress, so there will be little change, but still change. Again you somehow seem to think all creatures will turn into something radically different. I still don't believe you've ever picked up a biology book. Not sure what your fear is.


Translation: Evolution MAGICALLY happened. just mystical or pure random chance. It's all somehow going on without any sense of need or purpose. We're "lucky" it's happened because I cannot bring myself to accept something that makes more sense. :)
Magic? No. Just mutations over time and sometimes the advantageous mutations manage to replicate. Why is that so hard to accept. History is full of failed species. God and evolution are not at war. Only your tiny version of God is. That is a personal problem. Even the Pope has declared it. Time to break away from the cro-magnon side.

[darin]

"Hi! I'm Pete and I believe 'mutations' magically happened over time to lead to the life we see today! No, I can't explain how a non-blood cell first 'mutated' into a blood cell - and why it was that cell was beneficial-enough to hang around waiting for ANOTHER cell to magically - oops! I mean...'by random chance' mutate into the cells making up veins...then the blood cell and the vein cell just sorta hung out - maybe divided and created more of themselves - but those things hanging around for millions of years were completely and somehow beneficial-enough until a few other cells "mutated" into heart cells...and so on."


Pete. For seemingly a smart dude, your refusal to accept the MOST-Likely causes because of your ideogology mystifies me. It's like you walking out to your driveway and trying to convince your neighbors your car simply evolved into a car after millions of years of all the ingredients floating around the world. It’s a wonder we don't randomly find complete cakes on grocery store shelves.

[jimnyc]

evolution does not arise from need anyway, it's a passive process. sometimes the mutations help, sometimes they hurt. more drivel from revelarts who is desperate to convince a few internet trolls that fact is fiction

Well that's odd. I don't see any drivel, nor any trolls, unless when reading your posts. YOU are the one who is very rarely here, and then pops in out of nowhere to this thread, and then starts with the "drivel" and trolls crap. Sounds to me like what you just did was the very definition of trolling. Or perhaps YOU are trying to convince the uneducated out there that your opinions are somehow fact?

[tailfins]

Back then people were not as gullible as millions now are. So they did not claim back then that which looked to disprove Evolution as a factor in it being a valid theory.

What they have never explained is how species that were sent towards change by any catalyst thus had millions of years to effect that great change! For in their theory it was about survival and why change if it is so minor that millions(or even hundreds of thousands) of years the species can survive without that change!??

No sir, the logic and reality denies so much of their premise. Faith in the magic of "eons of time" SERVES THAT PURPOSE.- ;) --Tyr

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people will go through to deny God.

[revelarts]

What the scientists basically did was look at two pieces of shit. They were both brown and the same size. Must be the same. If they tested the genetics they'd be different. Of course, you'd be disappointed unless the newer bacteria had a head or something. That is your problem.
I don't understand your point in listing old creatures. They are genetically different even if they look the same. There was little environmental stress, so there will be little change, but still change. Again you somehow seem to think all creatures will turn into something radically different. I still don't believe you've ever picked up a biology book. Not sure what your fear is.
....

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/quizzical.gif

Pete, your scrambling for.. something here.

1st you disrespect the evolutionary scientist work and CONTRADICT them. Scientist in the article that say "evolution is fact" not theory.
THEY say the bacteria are the "identical".
You say they "just Look the same"
so you know MORE than the scientist who say there HAS BEEN NO EVOLUTION.
Why are you fighting with the scientist Pete? They made the observation.

"From this deep-sea location, a team of researchers collected fossilized sulfur bacteria that was 1.8 billion years old and compared it to bacteria that lived in the same region 2.3 billion years ago. Both sets of microbes were indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found off the coast of Chile."

But other scientist claim the opposite with you in other situations so, I guess your right inline with them.



This little bacteria had probably 900 millions years to evolve to the state it has been for the past 2.3 billion years. It's as perfect as it needs to be due to limited nutrients, entombed inside rocks, and no change in conditions to affect it further. It already has all it needs.




'Probably had', well that's a convenient assumption. any definite linage to go with that?
Along with all of the other assumptions that go into trying to decide what was going on on earth "2 billion" years ago.

[darin]

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people will go through to deny God.

Even beyond that - Taking religion out of it. The way people get SO CREATIVE in their efforts to deny a designer.

[pete311]

"Hi! I'm Pete and I believe 'mutations' magically happened over time to lead to the life we see today! No, I can't explain how a non-blood cell first 'mutated' into a blood cell - and why it was that cell was beneficial-enough to hang around waiting for ANOTHER cell to magically - oops! I mean...'by random chance' mutate into the cells making up veins...then the blood cell and the vein cell just sorta hung out - maybe divided and created more of themselves - but those things hanging around for millions of years were completely and somehow beneficial-enough until a few other cells "mutated" into heart cells...and so on."

Not knowing exactly how a mechanism works does not falsify it. I drive my car and I can't tell you the first thing about it's engine. The problem here is that you'll always be able to find something that we can't explain 100% yet. When we do fill in that whole, you just move on to the next. We have but merely scratched the surface on explaining the dynamics of gravity, yet you don't question it's mechanism. The only difference here is religion clouding your view and you extremely and understandably limited perspective of time.



Pete. For seemingly a smart dude, your refusal to accept the MOST-Likely causes because of your ideogology mystifies me. It's like you walking out to your driveway and trying to convince your neighbors your car simply evolved into a car after millions of years of all the ingredients floating around the world. It’s a wonder we don't randomly find complete cakes on grocery store shelves.

I follow the scientific method which is by definition a methodology, not ideology. You guys really appear foolish when you mix up definitions. The rest of this is complete rubbish and is not the claim of evolution. I've been over it time and time again. Why is it so hard to believe that mutations in genetics occur. These mutations can be good or bad. Evolution does not have a side. Plenty of failed species. Sometimes these mutations create an advantage. Sometimes these advantages are passed on and proliferate. Environment sometimes influences this process. Simplest example is a mutation in the feathers of a bird makes it more green. It happens to provide it more camouflage against hawks. There is a better chance that bird will survive and pass on it's genetics. 10,000 years later the bird species is mostly green. Why is that so hard to understand. That is basic evolution.



1st you disrespect the evolutionary scientist work and CONTRADICT them. Scientist in the article that say "evolution is fact" not theory.
THEY say the bacteria are the "identical".
You say they "just Look the same"
so you know MORE than the scientist who say there HAS BEEN NO EVOLUTION.
Why are you fighting with the scientist Pete? They made the observation.

"From this deep-sea location, a team of researchers collected fossilized sulfur bacteria that was 1.8 billion years old and compared it to bacteria that lived in the same region 2.3 billion years ago. Both sets of microbes were indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found off the coast of Chile."

But other scientist claim the opposite with you in other situations so, I guess your right inline with them.


The scientist can't make that claim. Use your critical thinking skills. The bacteria is fossilized. The "skeleton" has been turned into stone. There is no material to test genetics which would prove undeniably different even if they visually look the same.

At the end of the article another scientist says it's expected that the bacteria has hardly changed due to little environmental pressure. Again you are looking for big changes, but the mechanisms of evolution don't promise that.

btw, modern evolution theory has progressed far past the days of Darwin's first writings. No modern biologist takes it at it's word. Much of it has been revised and even some proven wrong. This is the power of science.

[darin]

But Pete - you CANNOT follow the scientific method and believe what you claim to buy into. C'mon man. It fails the requirement of falsifiability. Probably at LEAST that requirement. Now that doesn't mean it is worthless - we see micro 'evolution'...and sometimes macro evolutionists get to say 'Uh...it just magically evolved that way - without outside influence!'

It's like saying "Santa brought it!"

Evolution - the way you believe it, and I MUST say I admire the massive-amounts of faith you display believing something so (forgive me) silly - is a noun. Science is a verb. You want to verb your noun. Your Noun is NOT a verb. Evolutionary Theory like you buy into is NOT 'science' because science is an action. A methodology.

[aboutime]

For Pete's sake. Funny stuff. Did trolls exist 2 billion years ago, and just resurface?

[Drummond]

For Pete's sake. Funny stuff. Did trolls exist 2 billion years ago, and just resurface?

Question: can a troll evolve ? :laugh:

[aboutime]

Question: can a troll evolve ? :laugh:


Answer: Yes. And we have so many examples of their Evolution, right here on DP. Just start with Gabby, and fj fits right in. Just wondering what Bridges they live under?:laugh:

[darin]

FJ is NOT a troll. That dude is smart, articulate, and honestly, I hate debating him because he brings a lot to the table.

[pete311]

But Pete - you CANNOT follow the scientific method and believe what you claim to buy into. C'mon man. It fails the requirement of falsifiability. Probably at LEAST that requirement. Now that doesn't mean it is worthless - we see micro 'evolution'...and sometimes macro evolutionists get to say 'Uh...it just magically evolved that way - without outside influence!'

Oh does it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Unfalsifiability

You just keep spinning the usual tired anti-evolution rhetoric that has been countered a million times over.

Micro and Macro are the same thing just at different time scales.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

[revelarts]

...
btw, modern evolution theory has progressed far past the days of Darwin's first writings. No modern biologist takes it at it's word. Much of it has been revised and even some proven wrong. This is the power of science.

It seems to me MOST of it's foundation has been proven wrong at this point, but many scientist and other secular true believers a loathed to let it die as it should.
It should die like it's grandfather scientific theory "spontaneous generation".

[pete311]

It seems to me MOST of it's foundation has been proven wrong at this point, but many scientist and other secular true believers a loathed to let it die as it should.
It should die like it's grandfather scientific theory "spontaneous generation".

If you truly believe that then the next time you get ill don't visit a hospital because a lot of modern medicine uses evolutionary concepts, especially pharmacology.

[pete311]

btw, even the leader of the Catholic church, Pope Francis does not argue evolution.


“When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything,” he said. “However, it was not like that. He created beings and left them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave each one, so that they would develop, and reach their fullness.”


The creation of the universe, Francis said, was not a singular event, but rather “went forward for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia until it became what we know today.”


http://www.newsweek.com/pope-franciss-remarks-evolution-are-not-controversial-among-roman-catholics-281115

You see, there is no conflict with Christianity and evolution.

[revelarts]

If you truly believe that then the next time you get ill don't visit a hospital because a lot of modern medicine uses evolutionary concepts, especially pharmacology.

You mean like how evolution instructed the medical profession to believe in “vestigial” organs, which lead them to cut out tonsils and appendixes willy nilly believing that they were LEFT OVERS from our "evolutionary" ancestors?
thankfully I'll miss out on that evolutionary based medical practice.

And BTW evolution has failed even in it's predictions on how anti-biotic resistance works. it was assumed that viruses or bacteria evolved that is changed-mutated new features- but after regular research it's been found that what often happen is that the strain of bug that's not resistant to the drug dies off and the those are ALREADY resistance proliferate. in cases where there is a real mutation it turn out that what happen is the bug has actually LOSE a function and is therefore less prone to the drug. Like if you were scaring away dogs with a light for weeks but then the dogs came back but they had gouged their eyes out. so now the light is useless. have the dogs evolved? will they make better dogs without. will they grow wings? the point is there's no NEW information. it's a LOSE of Function and genetic information. Or finally it's the turning on or off of a switch that's already IN play in the creature. either way you're not getting a NEW creature just the same bug. like watching a ladybug on the ground then calling it evolution if you watch it fly away. ---praise Darwin it GREW WINGS when we tried to catch it, that's PROOF of evolution.---
the environment changed and the creature used feature it already had. (for maybe 2.3 billion years?) not a real mutation or evolution.

and here's a quote from one dr.

"...I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I've performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That's why most doctors--nearly two-thirds according to national polls--don't believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don't accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life....

...Without using evolutionary theory, doctors and scientists have discovered vaccines (Jenner, in the 18th century, before Darwin was born), discovered that germs cause infectious diseases (Pasteur, in the 19th century, who ignored Darwin), discovered genes (Mendel, in the 19th century, who was a priest and not a supporter of Darwin's theory), discovered antibiotics, and unraveled the secrets of the genetic code (the key to these discoveries was the discovery of the apparent design in the DNA double helix). Heart, liver, and kidney transplants, new treatments for cancer and heart disease, and a host of life-saving advances in medicine have been developed without input from evolutionary biologists. No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology. In fact, I think it's safe to say that the only contribution evolution has made to modern medicine is to take it down the horrific road of eugenics, which brought forced sterilization and bodily harm to many thousands of Americans in the early 1900s. That's a contribution which has brought shame--not advance--to the medical field. ....

Michael Egnor, M.D.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/why_would_i_want_my_doctor_to003300.html

[revelarts]

btw, even the leader of the Catholic church, Pope Francis does not argue evolution.
“When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything,” he said. “However, it was not like that. He created beings and left them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave each one, so that they would develop, and reach their fullness.”

The creation of the universe, Francis said, was not a singular event, but rather “went forward for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia until it became what we know today.”
http://www.newsweek.com/pope-franciss-remarks-evolution-are-not-controversial-among-roman-catholics-281115

You see, there is no conflict with Christianity and evolution.
I'm not Catholic.
and sorry, the Pope is just wrong on this one.
He's been bamboozled by the priesthood of the scientific establishment.

and yes, There's conflict with reality and the theory of evolution.
But many Christians still may not get the fact that... as usual... the Bible was right all along.

[revelarts]

If you truly believe that then the next time you get ill don't visit a hospital because a lot of modern medicine uses evolutionary concepts, especially pharmacology.
From a medical skeptics site
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/about-science-based-medicine/
Evolutionary Medicine (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/evolutionary-medicine/)
...The problem with evolutionary explanations is that we can never know for sure if they are true. We may be inventing “Just So Stories” like Rudyard Kipling’s “How the Camel Got His Hump.” Our explanation may seem perfectly reasonable but we may not have all the information and there may be a better explanation that simply doesn’t occur to us.
There are also pitfalls in trying to determine how our Stone Age ancestors lived. The evidence is spotty. It is tempting to think we should try to live more like they did, but that doesn’t necessarily follow. Stone Age women had fewer menstrual cycles during their lifetime because of constant pregnancies and breastfeeding – does that really mean that we should suppress menstruation in women today? Maybe, maybe not.....



Do We Need “Evolutionary Medicine”? (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/21546/)
3 years ago I wrote an article critical of “evolutionary medicine” (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/evolutionary-medicine/) as it was presented in a new book. Recently a correspondent asked me if I thought another book, Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, by Randolph M. Nesse, MD and George C. Williams, PhD, was a more reasonable approach to the subject. It was published in 1994 and got good reviews from respected scientists like Richard Dawkins (“Buy two copies and give one to your doctor.”) and E.O. Wilson (“bringing the evolutionary vision systematically into one of the last unconquered provinces…”). I was able to obtain a copy through interlibrary loan.
The book was interesting and gave me some things to think about, but it didn’t convince me that “Darwinian medicine” is a new science, that its existence as a separate discipline is justified, or that its unique approach offers any real practical benefits for improving medical care....

....

Why are wisdom teeth a problem? (they say) Modern children frequently need orthodontia and surgery to remove wisdom teeth. They propose a possible explanation: we don’t chew enough. In the Stone Age, food required more jaw exercise. Today softer foods result in deficient use of jaw muscles, which results in poorer development of jawbones so there is less room for all the teeth. They suggest that many dental problems might be avoided if children chewed more gum or engaged in prolonged vigorous biting competitions.

This is nothing but silly, far-fetched speculation. You’ve got to give them credit for imagination; but if this is the kind of thing “Darwinian medicine” produces, we can do without it.
There is a disconnect in their logic. They say

For instance, if we hypothesize that the low iron levels associated with infection are not a cause of the infection but a part of the body’s defenses, we can predict that giving a patient iron may worsen the infection — as indeed it can. Trying to determine the evolutionary origins of disease is much more than a fascinating intellectual pursuit; it is also a vital yet underused tool in our quest to understand, prevent, and treat disease.
We can ask if something acts as a defense. We can ask whether something is a cause or effect. We can ask whether something does more harm or good. We can ask all these questions about how something works without necessarily needing to ask why it evolved to work that way....

[darin]

Oh does it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Unfalsifiability

You just keep spinning the usual tired anti-evolution rhetoric that has been countered a million times over.

So you quote something written by an agenda-driven author, using their suppositions as proof? I thought you were better than that.




Micro and Macro are the same thing just at different time scales.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

First off: "Berkeley". I beg the question of bias.

Secondly: That's simply TOO convienient. Here's your entire argument: "I, pete, believe the systems Of biology magically evolved from nothing into what they've become SOLELY upon this: "They did it SO SLOWLY there's no evidence they did it at all. The evidence we have show nothing 'in progress', but that doesn't matter. I cannot explain why a cell would mutate into a blood cell ahead of other cells mutating into vein cells or heart cells simultaneously, but that doesn't matter because my head - and the heads of others - are so far shoved up our anus as to prevent us from seeing the most-obvious solution to the whole question of 'how did life happen?'. In fact, I should probably believe the Mars rovers evolved from their environments, too - I mean, Mars is inhabited solely by Robots. It'd be stupid to think they were designed. I prefer to think they magically just sorta happened through random chance."

[pete311]

So you quote something written by an agenda-driven author, using their suppositions as proof? I thought you were better than that.

Wikipedia is usually quite good due to it's constant review process. If you read the segment you'd see it's sound.



First off: "Berkeley". I beg the question of bias.

How is one of the best universities in the world biased? Exactly what source would be good enough for you?



Secondly: That's simply TOO convienient. Here's your entire argument: "I, pete, believe the systems Of biology magically evolved from nothing into what they've become SOLELY upon this: "They did it SO SLOWLY there's no evidence they did it at all. The evidence we have show nothing 'in progress', but that doesn't matter. I cannot explain why a cell would mutate into a blood cell ahead of other cells mutating into vein cells or heart cells simultaneously, but that doesn't matter because my head - and the heads of others - are so far shoved up our anus as to prevent us from seeing the most-obvious solution to the whole question of 'how did life happen?'. In fact, I should probably believe the Mars rovers evolved from their environments, too - I mean, Mars is inhabited solely by Robots. It'd be stupid to think they were designed. I prefer to think they magically just sorta happened through random chance."

You love using the word magic. You know who also loved magic and mysticism? People who lived in the dark ages. Again we ride the merry-go-round of topics that have been explained a billion times over. Do you guys have no memory or what. FOR THE LAST TIME: evolution has never claimed to explain the creation of life. Science can't explain that yet (abiogenesis is being worked on but very early on). So go ahead and claim God put the first celled creatures on earth. I won't argue you. Evolution is simply the process of how life changes over time (NOT THE BEGINNING OF LIFE). If you believe life has not changed and been static for 3.8 BILLION years then you are in an insignificant minority of epic proportions.

[revelarts]

You love using the word magic. You know who also loved magic and mysticism? People who lived in the dark ages. Again we ride the merry-go-round of topics that have been explained a billion times over. Do you guys have no memory or what. FOR THE LAST TIME: evolution has never claimed to explain the creation of life. Science can't explain that yet (abiogenesis is being worked on but very early on). So go ahead and claim God put the first celled creatures on earth. I won't argue you. Evolution is simply the process of how life changes over time (NOT THE BEGINNING OF LIFE). If you believe life has not changed and been static for 3.8 BILLION years then you are in an insignificant minority of epic proportions.

Pete 3 things, I'd be glad to reply in a bit of detail your your wiki arguments but it'd be very long and I doubt you'd reply or believeit and other's probably wouldn't read it either. If i can condense it in to a few sentences with some links for back up i'll do that another time.

concerning your admission about about abiogenesis, you say we can have that one, But you say they are still working on it. in other words they still have faith there's SOME way some dead chemical can naturally transform in an information filled living organism. But at this point they KNOW that there's NOTHING in science that can explain it. So you'll allow God in the door at point. OK great. that's movement. I've been their, i used to believe in evolution as well then i got to that point to.

But here's the problem there are other places along the imagined evolutionary line that also have ZERO scientific explanation as well. (besides the whole process being full of holes)

After abiogenesis, ---after God created life--- the evolution story say things gradually went along getter more and more complex.

the breaks need to be on right there for 2 reasons. One there's ZERO known or demonstrated scientific mechanism for any simple organism to INCREASE the amount of information coded in it's DNA for new functions. antibiotic resistance does not come by increase in information in or genetic codes.

And 2, the Cambrian Explosion happened suddenly not gradual at all. And has NOT been explained, Darwin ASSUMED that more digging would prove that it was gradual but now, over 100 years later, the fossil record is worse on this point than before. And right now in China they are finding even more fossils that show that there were various types of life during the Cambrian that were thought to have "evolved" long after. So the fossil record shows a SUDDEN explosion of lifeforms, and many persist to this day unchanged. Evolution does NOT explain this IN ANYWAY.Darwin admitted that this was a horrible blow against his theory. Current evolutionist will not. they have faith that some new exotic unknown undiscovered unseen natural mechanism will explain it. BUT have ZERO science to back it up. Darwin was a bit more honest.

so at this point the Cambrian Explosion is MAGIC as far as science is concerned.

then there's the psychological (spiritual) evolution where there's a jump from an animalistic brain to the type of brain that bring here us to discuss the type of questions we are looking at right now. Our introspection, self awareness, why why why and morals, and heck even language. There's no known natural mechicanism that will KICK up (or over) a brain to do those things. no scientific observational, experimental facts that show how it happened. ONLY a STORY that it did. well ...."nature" had to do it must have because we are here....Magic.

[pete311]

I see you're going to throw me back down the rabbit hole of questions we've already been through a million times. Questions that are very interesting and need to be solved, but ultimately have no bearing on the legitimacy of evolution theory. Again I must reiterate that it's strange your obsession with evolution and not gravity when science quite frankly has little idea how gravity works at the quantum level. Talk about a BIG hole! Why are you not out rattling about how gravity is a fraud? Religion blinds you.



concerning your admission about about abiogenesis, you say we can have that one, But you say they are still working on it. in other words they still have faith there's SOME way some dead chemical can naturally transform in an information filled living organism. But at this point they KNOW that there's NOTHING in science that can explain it. So you'll allow God in the door at point. OK great. that's movement. I've been their, i used to believe in evolution as well then i got to that point to.


Except it's rather irrelevant. The creation of life is different than the mechanisms for how creatures change over time.



But here's the problem there are other places along the imagined evolutionary line that also have ZERO scientific explanation as well. (besides the whole process being full of holes)


Some holes, but again, not important overall.



After abiogenesis, ---after God created life--- the evolution story say things gradually went along getter more and more complex.

The term gradual is subjective and can be often distorted in graphs depending on the scales.



the breaks need to be on right there for 2 reasons. One there's ZERO known or demonstrated scientific mechanism for any simple organism to INCREASE the amount of information coded in it's DNA for new functions. antibiotic resistance does not come by increase in information in or genetic codes.

Mutations can both add information and subtract information. Where are you getting your information from? :)



And 2, the Cambrian Explosion happened suddenly not gradual at all.

If you consider 53 million years as gradual. Many important divergences were setup during the Precambrian age which lasted 4 billion years.



then there's the psychological (spiritual) evolution where there's a jump from an animalistic brain to the type of brain that bring here us to discuss the type of questions we are looking at right now. Our introspection, self awareness, why why why and morals, and heck even language. There's no known natural mechicanism that will KICK up (or over) a brain to do those things. no scientific observational, experimental facts that show how it happened. ONLY a STORY that it did. well ...."nature" had to do it must have because we are here....Magic.

Interesting, but again not important to understanding the basic mechanisms of evolution. There is no kick or light switch. Morals, language, and even self awareness are things that are developed overtime through culture. These are more social and anthropological science questions. btw, there are myriads of studies that show other animals have languages, morality codes and self awareness. We're not THAT special of an animal. Read the book "Ishmael" sometime.

[revelarts]

I'll just comment on 2 items


...Again I must reiterate that it's strange your obsession with evolution and not gravity when science quite frankly has little idea how gravity works at the quantum level. Talk about a BIG hole! Why are you not out rattling about how gravity is a fraud? Religion blinds you.

you always want to compare evolution to gravity. It compares beter with the theory of spontanous generation"

there are several theories of sceince that are NO longer with us. questioning a theory is is PART of science. you refusal to deal with glaring holes is ANTI-science. and just blind faith.



Mutations can both add information and subtract information. Where are you getting your information from? :)

there is LOSS of information, we agree there.
But there's ZERO added information. Please give me experimental, observed examples for new genetic material that's not TRANSFERRED by MAN or stripped from other creatures that ALREADY have it...from???
this is a fact that breeders have known for centuries. the genes have a certain range based on what's already there. beyond that it just breaks.

There are no natural or breed BLUE roses, much less roses with wings. The Rose gene has a range and that's it.
It and all other creatures do not evolve new information.

Only in the imagination of the evolutionist does it happen.

[pete311]

you always want to compare evolution to gravity. It compares beter with the theory of spontanous generation"

I'm a little confused about the comparing bit but again spontaneous generation has no place in modern evolution theory.



you refusal to deal with glaring holes is ANTI-science

You can't seem to deal with the fact that although the holes are interesting, they in no way falsify it.



there is LOSS of information, we agree there.
But there's ZERO added information. Please give me experimental, observed examples for new genetic material that's not TRANSFERRED by MAN or stripped from other creatures that ALREADY have it...from???
this is a fact that breeders have known for centuries. the genes have a certain range based on what's already there. beyond that it just breaks.

There are no natural or breed BLUE roses, much less roses with wings. The Rose gene has a range and that's it.
It and all other creatures do not evolve new information.

Only in the imagination of the evolutionist does it happen.

DNA addition can happen in mechanisms of Gene Duplication, Vertical Gene Transfer and according to Shannon-Weaver information theory.

Nice of you to bring up selective dog breeding. Canis familiaris comes from ​Canis lupus. That is an artificial evolution at a very small scale. Congrats, you now believe in evolution.

[revelarts]

I'm a little confused about the comparing bit but again spontaneous generation has no place in modern evolution theory.



neither does gravity

[pete311]

neither does gravity
I'll concede that much

[revelarts]

DNA addition can happen in mechanisms of Gene Duplication, Vertical Gene Transfer and according to Shannon-Weaver information theory.


correct me if I'm wrong but
Duplication is not NEW information
Transfer is not new information. (where'd the original source get it? )

And Did a quick look at the Shannon weaver information theory and there's nothing there that i see that assume new information rising from a source. it seems it expect noise to interfere with the original information. which is what we see when thing like birth defects and deliterious mutations the genetic code/information is NOT transferred well.

so no we have no experimental evidence of New information. It's assumed by evolution.

[pete311]

correct me if I'm wrong but
Duplication is not NEW information
Transfer is not new information. (where'd the original source get it? )

And Did a quick look at the Shannon weaver information theory and there's nothing there that i see that assume new information rising from a source. it seems it expect noise to interfere with the original information. which is what we see when thing like birth defects and deliterious mutations the genetic code/information is NOT transferred well.

so no we have no experimental evidence of New information. It's assumed by evolution.

If you look at the concepts and not just assume based on the name you'll see. I can explain, but it's dinner time. I will be back late tonight or tomorrow.

[pete311]

Just ran across this

Human DNA enlarges mouse brains
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/02/human-dna-enlarges-mouse-brains

[revelarts]

Just ran across this

Human DNA enlarges mouse brains
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/02/human-dna-enlarges-mouse-brains

Interesting... but disturbing work.
but again what do we have here. scientist adding ALREADY FORMED DNA into another creature. Not NEW information forming on it's own. but information added to.
Not evolution but genetic manipulation, sloppy intelligent design if your will.

But in general the experiments are weird, trying to breed smarter mice , just what the world needs.

[darin]

Interesting... but disturbing work.
but again what do we have here. scientist adding ALREADY FORMED DNA into another creature. Not NEW information forming on it's own. but information added to.
Not evolution but genetic manipulation, sloppy intelligent design if your will.

But in general the experiments are weird, trying to breed smarter mice , just what the world needs.

Just kinda shows a designer is required. :)

[pete311]

Interesting... but disturbing work.
but again what do we have here. scientist adding ALREADY FORMED DNA into another creature. Not NEW information forming on it's own. but information added to.
Not evolution but genetic manipulation, sloppy intelligent design if your will.


Preservation of duplicate genes by complementary, degenerative mutations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1460548/

The probability of duplicate gene preservation by subfunctionalization.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10629003

Ohno's dilemma: Evolution of new genes under continuous selection

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040452/

Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeastSaccharomyces cerevisiae

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040452/


I found a few studies in a few minutes. There must be hundreds to choose from if I had the time.


btw, after some reading I came across this interesting quote


You also have to be careful that advanced, evolved, complex doesn't necessarily mean more information.

Mammals have relatively few genes compared to 'more primitive' (whatever that means) organisms. One reason is that they have a very constant body temperature so generally only need one chemical pathway to manufacture each protein.
Cold blooded animals and especially amphibians often need a dozen different ways of synthesizing the same molecule depending on body and ambient temperature, environment etc. All these pathways need many more genes to code for the proteins and enzymes required.

And of course animals that have a larval stage need 2 or 3 "complete" genomes for different phases of their lives.

[revelarts]

none of that is talking about new information
except that last quote that says you don't need new information.

"And of course animals that have a larval stage need 2 or 3 "complete" genomes for different phases of their lives."
:laugh:

the simple creatures we came from and are found FAR EARLIER in the fossil record are MORE complex with 2 or 3 more genomes than we advanced creatures have, sooo that's "of course " evidence FOR evolution?! ....from the simple to the complex??
:laugh:

the doublethink here is piling up

Look before the genone projects evolutionary scientist where SURE that the "lower " creatures would have fewer genes than the "higher" ones. it was to be another EVIDENCE for evolution.

but they were "shocked" "surprised" etc to find more genes in some very "simple" creatures. less in "modern'. And again "shocked" "surprised" to find the same numbers and kinds of genes across lines of animals they never imagined would have similar genome properties or number counts.

but is that failed prediction consdiered a strike against the theory? what? of course not!

Just as the science went against Darwin's prediction that the cell would be found to be a "simple" structure, a glob like thing.

failed prediction

and evolutionary scientist expected to find useless parts of genes and thought they found them and used them as evidence for evolution. But now know better since after observational science work it seems there are no useless genes.

another failed prediction
but they say again, that it doesn't mater, It's just evolved somehow to use everything.

so again with each new discovery that goes AGAINST evolutionary PREDICTIONS the evolutionary story just changes to shoe horn in the new data. make up a NEW STORY.

So now the evolutionary scientist foundational prediction that a creatures do randomly by environmental pressures do mutate NEW information in the genes to develop a wing, a liver, a new muscle, a fingernail, an eye, a tongue, photosynthesis, water resistant skin, camouflage, etc etc. THAT DOESN"T HAPPEN like they predicted.... or at all.... except in the dim unseen past we're sure.... but it doesn't matter if it looks impossible today.
The BELIEF that it's It's still evolved somekindaway is not doubted.

it appears unfalsifiable

[pete311]

none of that is talking about new information


Either you didn't read the abstracts or can't comprehend them or you have some non traditional definition of information.

I don't understand any of the gibberish ramblings of the rest of your post

[darin]

Pete, your pattern is to not-understand ANYTHING that counters your ideology.

[pete311]

Pete, your pattern is to not-understand ANYTHING that counters your ideology.

I think I've responded pretty consistently and intelligibly. What is happening is that I'm starting to respond with sources you guys clearly aren't reading and then you devolve into petty trolling and ramblings of completely irrelevant side topics. It's clear you have nothing left to add but the display of your unfathomable stubbornness.

[revelarts]

Either you didn't read the abstracts or can't comprehend them or you have some non traditional definition of information.
I don't understand any of the gibberish ramblings of the rest of your post
look my writing is much simpler and clearer than the double-speak of your links and quotes.
And frankly some of the more technical info takes time to digest and understand but let take a look.


Preservation of duplicate genes by complementary, degenerative mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1460548/
The probability of duplicate gene preservation by subfunctionalization.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10629003
Ohno's dilemma: Evolution of new genes under continuous selection
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040452/
Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeastSaccharomyces cerevisiae
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040452/


OK, I asked for experimental examples of NEW information being added to genes.
what you post is
duplicate genes, duplicate gene preservation, etcc.

And they all are --and especially the last 2--- are talking about the problems, and "probability" of this being "the" way evolution happened.

They do not SHOW new information in the genes. They say maybe it happen this way IN SPITE OF of this problem, that problem and this other factor that would hinder it.

they say genes duplicate and so now 1 is "useless" and has the "chance" to self edit by random+envirov pressure and every blue moon it "helps" and somehow some become dominant over the original. That's a lot of lucky incidents and it's just a STORY it's not an example. the experiments show that genes do NOT alter randomly to create new genetic information or functions.

No new information. Same as a simple child's calculator that only does + and - doesn't some how evolve into a calculator that does scientific equations, because it has extra space on the circuit board to self edit randomly and it's feeling the pressure of being in a house with college students. therefore the information to calculate more arises.
the calculator and the manufacturing plant are set up to make one or the other by design.

And there are scientist that point this out,
and not only that but the fact that small changes in the gene ..as elsewhere... often end up non-functional and discarded or likely harmful.

for instance it's my understanding that the golbin gene -part of the Hemoglobin and others- is very complex (like all) and has specific functions to deal with iron and oxygen in very constrained ways. small edits or stray duplicates have nothing to transform into to make the handling BETTER or more efficient. Small changes only cause problems.

[revelarts]

here's an example of how evolutionary science defends it self.
(all emphasis in quote are mine)


Is Evolution True? Laying Out the Logic Ann Gauger (http://www.biologicinstitute.org/people) <abbr class="date" title="2014-12-05T03:32:50-08:00">December 5, 2014 </abbr>

Monday we published a paper (http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.4) in the journal BIO-Complexity (http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main) demonstrating that enzymes can't evolve genuinely new functions by unguided means. We argue that design by a very sophisticated intelligent agent is the best explanation for their origin. I want to take some time to lay out our argument against Darwinian evolution and for intelligent design. It's important, because it reveals the logical fallacy in most evolutionary thinking.

Just to give an example of the thinking of ID critics, here is a passage from one of the references in our paper (Kherhonsky (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1367593106001189) et al. (2006) Enzyme promiscuity: Evolutionary and mechanistic aspects. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 10:498-508):

"An oft-forgotten essence of Darwinian processes is that they occur gradually, while maintaining organism fitness throughout. Consequently, a reasonable assumption is that, ever since the emergence of the primordial living forms, very little novelty has evolved at the molecular level. Rather, existing genes were modified, or tinkered with', to generate new protein structures and functions that are related to those of their ancestors. Unlike 'out of the blue' scenarios advocated by the 'intelligent design' school, 'tinkering' scenarios depend on the availability of evolutionary starting points. The hypothesis that the broad specificity, or promiscuous functions, of existing enzymes provide these starting points was first formalized by Jensen in a review that has inspired many. Jensen proposed that, in contrast to modern enzymes, primitive enzymes possessed very broad specificities. This catalytic versatility enabled fewer enzymes to perform the multitude of functions that was necessary to maintain ancestral organisms. Duplication of genes and divergence led to specialized genes and increased metabolic efficiency. Since Jensen, the structures of >30,000 proteins, and the sequences of hundreds of thousands, have taught us that these processes led to the creation of enzyme families and superfamilies. The vestiges of these divergence processes are the scaffold and active site architecture shared by all family members [6]."

To summarize, the key points of that evolutionary argument are:


Evolution is true. That is, enzymes have evolved new functions by a process of random mutation and natural selection.
Modern enzymes can't evolve genuinely new functions by random mutation and natural selection but can only tinker with existing functions.
Therefore, ancient enzymes must have been different, capable of carrying out a broad range of enzyme activities.
Those enzymes underwent duplication and diverged from one another, becoming specialized.
How do we know this happened? Because we now see a broad array of specialized enzymes. Evolution is the explanation.


This begs the question of whether evolution is true. It is a circular argument unsubstantiated by the evidence and unfalsifiable. No one can know what ancient enzymes actually looked like, and whether they really had such broad catalytic specificities.

In contrast, our argument is as follows:


Is evolution true? Test case: Do enzymes evolve by a process of natural selection and random mutation?
Modern enzymes are the only thing we can test.
No one knows if ancient enzymes were different. They are lost in the deep past, so claims with regard to their promiscuity or ability to evolve are hypothetical and unfalsifiable.
Modern enzymes can't evolve new functions, based on our own experiments.
We haven't tested the universe of modern enzymes, so our result is qualified, but the nine most similar enzymes did not change function.
Our estimate for the likely waiting time for an enzyme to evolve a new function is at least 1015 years.
Therefore evolution of enzymes is likely to be impossible.
Given the sophistication of enzymes and the way they work together, intelligent design is the best explanation for the origin and current diversity of modern enzymes.


You can read the argument in more detail in our paper.
Notice both arguments agree that modern enzymes can't evolve genuinely new functions. The difference is in the conclusion reached. ......Any hypothesis about the deep past is accepted if it allows an evolutionary explanation for current diversity, and avoids problems with difficult facts. As a consequence, papers on the origin of life, protein evolution, the origin of animal form, and human origins are full of speculation masked as supporting argument, or even as statements of fact.

But the problem remains. If you start with the assumption that evolution is true, and view all evidence through those glasses, you won't even notice that your argument chases its tail....
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/is_evolution_tr091731.html

[LOki]

here's an example of how evolutionary science defends it self.
(all emphasis in quote are mine)I have never heard anyone who understands evolution make the claim that enzymes evolve. Anyone who does, possesses a failure in understanding of what the theory of evolution is about, and what enzymes are.

I have seen creationists intentionally misrepresent the assertions of evolutionary scientists. They cultivate a deep and abiding dis-understanding of evolution.

[revelarts]

I have never heard anyone who understands evolution make the claim that enzymes evolve. Anyone who does, possesses a failure in understanding of what the theory of evolution is about, and what enzymes are.

I have seen creationists intentionally misrepresent the assertions of evolutionary scientists. They cultivate a deep and abiding dis-understanding of evolution.
Well I believe the paper on the enzymes and evolution in the above is here.
http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/evocellbio/Promiscuity.pdf

here are a few more I papers i found on the role of enzyme evolution by folks that promote evolution.
Enzyme promiscuity: engine of evolutionary innovation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25210039

Enzyme recruitment in evolution of new function.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/791073

Enzyme Evolution Explained
http://psb.stanford.edu/psb-online/proceedings/psb00/dean.pdf

But reread the post itself, it's fairly clear on what it means by evolution of enzymes. it's talking about change in function to allow new activity i believe. those responding to the ID people seem to use the term and concept as well.


...Jensen proposed that, in contrast to modern enzymes, primitive enzymes possessed very broad specificities. This catalytic versatility enabled fewer enzymes to perform the multitude of functions that was necessary to maintain ancestral organisms. Duplication of genes and divergence led to specialized genes and increased metabolic efficiency. Since Jensen, the structures of >30,000 proteins, and the sequences of hundreds of thousands, have taught us that these processes led to the creation of enzyme families and superfamilies. The vestiges of these divergence processes are the scaffold and active site architecture shared by all family members [6]....

So i'm not sure what you mean. are you saying that those kind of imagined changes they are asserting are NOT real evolution? that the word for it is wrong? Are you saying since it's so far at the beginning stages that it's not really part of the evolution story?
There's nothing disingenuous going on here so I don't see what you mean.

[PixieStix]

For Pete's sake. Funny stuff. Did trolls exist 2 billion years ago, and just resurface?

:rofl1:

[DLT]

Same double think loons use the exact same stupidity to justify the global warming scam.
The world is are up with such mad, raving fooooooools!!!!!
These idiots want to have their damn cake and eat it too!!!
Reality proves they are liars, deluded and indeed crazy but then again look at the gullible under educated masses they are manipulating by using this method of insanity and subterfuge!
All the while stirring up pure righteous contempt and anger from we not so stupid as to believe all that lying tripe!

If such simple organisms did not change in 2 billion years why and how did other organisms do so??? What got me always was any catalyst they vaguely mentioned to justify the need for change had to be so paramount to its survival that in millions/billions of years the changing entity would have died out. They never explain how the need for change(catalyst) which had to be great allowed for such eons of time and how the entity thus survived if the catalyst was that great.
Evolution is pure bunk.. Now they recently scream BIG BANG IS WRONG !
Well hell, I knew that back in 1967 at age 13.....
These people espouse theories that they like(serve a political purpose) as if they are solid fact, when they are far from it..--Tyr

And then the idiots expect their "theories" to be accepted as fact and settled science....

just cause they said so. lol

[LOki]

Well I believe the paper on the enzymes and evolution in the above is here.
http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/evocellbio/Promiscuity.pdf

here are a few more I papers i found on the role of enzyme evolution by folks that promote evolution.
Enzyme promiscuity: engine of evolutionary innovation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25210039

Enzyme recruitment in evolution of new function.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/791073

Enzyme Evolution Explained
http://psb.stanford.edu/psb-online/proceedings/psb00/dean.pdf

But reread the post itself, it's fairly clear on what it means by evolution of enzymes. it's talking about change in function to allow new activity i believe. those responding to the ID people seem to use the term and concept as well.



So i'm not sure what you mean. are you saying that those kind of imagined changes they are asserting are NOT real evolution? that the word for it is wrong? Are you saying since it's so far at the beginning stages that it's not really part of the evolution story?
There's nothing disingenuous going on here so I don't see what you mean.Those papers seem to confirm my understanding of enzymes and evolution.

Enzymes don't evolve. Populations of organisms do.

The it seems understood that the differentiation and specification discussed is the product of evolutionary processes.

I don't think it is at all controversial to assert that the differences observed are the result of respective differences in the genetic material of the respective organisms.

It seems extremely controversial to assert that alterations in the enzymes themselves could give rise to those changes in later generations, as would be expected if enzymes evolved rather than the populations of organisms that express them. It's alterations in population genetics that result in the expression of altered enzymes in those respective populations.

Considering the well established understanding that alterations in genetic material has been caused naturally without specified direction, it seems far less controversial to assert that the observed differences innthese enzymes, and their observed frequency of expression conform to natural causes, than to assert that those expressions are the result of some specified, but undiscovered and unverifiable design.