It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution Confirmed (Again); Single Celled Organism Evolves Into Multicellular

page: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Firepac
 

here are two great papers explaining why evolution cannot occur because the mutation rates are too high. they both come to the same conclusion.


The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U [detrimental mutation rate] would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction [like humans and apes etc.] . . . The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e -U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size.

www.detectingdesign.com...


Widely recognized geneticist James Crow in an article in the same Nature issue agrees that the deleterious rate is more likely twice the rate cited by Eyre-Walker and Keightley8. So if we use Crow's revised rate of U=3, we get: B = 2e^3 = 40 births before we get one offspring that escapes a new defect!

evolutionfairytale.com...

it's over for evolution. human females do not produce 40 children (and 39 would have to die off). there is no way around that.


Oh hell no. Mr. Bob Sholtz. get your bias sources off my thread.

If you wanna participate in my thread, address the issues of my OP. Do not use my thread to spread your misinformation from bias news sources.

Heck, you don't even read your own sources! You have been debunked, using those same bias sources, in your own thread. And yet, even after defeat, you spill those bias sources here?

I have nothing against your God. I have nothing against a God, the idea of a God, etc.

I do have something against people telling me that because I think Earth is billions years old, and because I don't think Dino's lived with Human's, I will go to hell.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Alright Bob, here goes.

evolutionfairytale.com...

I'm referring to the link above in this post. Every quote will be from there or from a legitimate source. The biggest issue I have is with determining that formula that claims 1 in 40 children will not have a harmful mutation.

First here's the abstract, which in a science experiment is a summary of the what the experiment does and what can be observed or tested based on that:


Evidence continues to mount contradicting the evolutionist's claim that man and ape share a common ancestry.

No scientific study has ever claimed this, but lets continue.


Over the last 20 years, studies have shown that the human mutation rate is inexplicably too high1,2. A recent study published in Nature has solidified this3.

Source #3 is a dead link. Alright I've read the abstracts of the 2 cited experiments, and yes it APPEARS to be higher than EXPECTED.


These rates are simply too high for man to have evolved from anything, and if true would show that man must in fact be regressing (a position very consistent with a recent creation of man). Most evolutionists ignore this problem, and those who do attempt to address it leave us with just-so stories void of any supporting evidence.

Now when you look at this statement, it has absolutely nothing to do with the previous one. How are the rates too high to "have evolved from anything?" What justification is used to show this. None of the experiments were done on our ancestors, so without checking their mutation rate, there is no way to conclusively determine that we 'could not have evolved from them'. That statement is absolutely silly, and not a single experiment on mutations suggests this.

So that's their summary of the entire thing, which is 50% wrong. On to the fomula:


Let's first consider the recent Eyre-Walker & Keightley article in Nature magazine3. By comparing human and chimp differences in protein-coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious (harmful) mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation. They acknowledge that this seems too high, but quickly invoke something called "synergistic epistasis" as a just-so explanation (I'll address this later).


Again, the source is a dead link. Is there another source where I can find that U=1.6 assessment? If it's accurate and indeed a 1.6% chance per individual, then where does the 1/40 come from? A 1.6% chance of harmful mutation in a individual is low.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is "invoked"? Can you show me conclusive data that shows synergistic epistasis is wrong?


What is not adequately conveyed to the reader is just how bad this problem is for evolution. It is related to the renowned geneticist J.B.S. Haldane's reproductive cost problem that Walter Remine so eloquently elucidated in "The Biotic Message"4.

Source #4: A christian philosophy book written by Walter Remine, a guy who's got a masters degree in electric engineering (not physics, genetics, chemistry, or anything that has to do with evolution).


What we will determine is how many offspring are needed to produce one that does not receive a new harmful mutation during the reproduction process. This is important since evolution requires "beneficial" mutations to build up such that new features and organs can arise (I say "beneficial" loosely, since there are no known examples where a mutation added information to the genome, though there are some that under certain circumstances can provide a temporary or superficial advantage to a species5). If over time harmful mutations outpace "beneficial" ones to fixation, evolution from molecules-to-man surely cannot occur. This would be like expecting to get rich despite consistently spending more money than you make

Source#5 is also a theology book, not a science book.

www.talkorigins.org...

A good article on mutations that add information.

**NEXT POST COVERS THE FORMULA, PLEASE DON'T RESPOND TO THIS UNTIL I FINISH THE WHOLE RESPONSE. THANKS**
edit on 27-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


The formula itself:


So, to determine the reproductive impact, let

p = probability an individual's genome does not receive a new defect this generation

A female is required to produce two offspring, one to replace herself and her mate. So, she needs to produce at least 2/p to pay this cost and maintain the population. Let B represent the birth threshold:

B = 2/p


If p = the probability of a individual not receiving a defect, then p should equal 98.4%, since U = 1.6 according to the unsourced claim above.

For B: This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Women produce various amounts of offspring. The number isn't always 2, and our population is growing, so saying that 2 is average to even out the population doesn't necessarily reflect what is actually happening in the real world. If you divide the number of children by the probability of them not getting a defect it is an inaccurate determination. What does 2/p actually equal? If each individual child, has a 1.6% chance of getting a genetic defect, then the chance of 1 out of 2 children to receive this defect is 3.2%, which is double the chance of 1.6%. If the woman had 3 kids, it would be a 4.8% chance of ONE of the kids getting a genetic defect. We're not even close to the 1 in 40 without a harmful mutation number yet.


The probability p of an offspring escaping error-free is given by e^-U6. Therefore, making the substitution,

B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female!


Source#6 is another dead link. I need an explanation for E^U power, and why it is substituted for p. P is 98.4% as "shown" above, why substitute it when you already have the figure? 1.6% chance of of a genetic defect, means that a woman that has 2 children, has a 3.2% chance that one of her kids will have a genetic defect. That formula is bunk. B=9.9 is a baseless figure not based on any legitimate math. If a female had 10 children, then the chance of ONE of her kids being affected by a harmful mutation is 16%. So again, the article is doing nothing but cherry picking bits and pieces of studies and compiling their own BS formula which isn't even accurate based on statistical probability. 1 in 40 is a completely false number based on faulty formula that hasn't been verified by any scientific study ever. It is just the author throwing numbers together in an attempt to deceive people. The math does not add up, and isn't accurate by a longshot. This is exactly why I was saying that the article is a biased deceptive article. It uses terms and draws conclusions that have nothing to do with the actual science experiment or reality of math. Please explain this because right now it's looking like a giant crock of BS.
edit on 27-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 

again, you offer no evidence that proves the two papers i linked wrong. you just say "it's wrong." i thought evolution was backed by lots of evidence? it all dries up when you actually look for it.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Where did the yeast cells come from for this? Did they make them too? If they did then it would get my undivided attention.

P.S. Please do not confuse me with Squiz as I just noticed that would be quite easy to do, thanks.
edit on 27/1/2012 by squizzy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



Source #3 is a dead link. Alright I've read the abstracts of the 2 cited experiments, and yes it APPEARS to be higher than EXPECTED.

that is putting it very mildly.


Now when you look at this statement, it has absolutely nothing to do with the previous one. How are the rates too high to "have evolved from anything?"

i've explained a billion times, evolution requires lots of beneficial information-adding mutations. instead of finding lots of evidence for them, we find very little. they happen very, very rarely. the rate of deleterious mutations is such that the genome is shrinking over time, not getting bigger. this means that the mechanism that drives evolution doesn't actually exist, ergo nothing could have evolved.


Again, the source is a dead link. Is there another source where I can find that U=1.6 assessment? If it's accurate and indeed a 1.6% chance per individual, then where does the 1/40 come from? A 1.6% chance of harmful mutation in a individual is low.

all you have to do is paste the article name in google to find the source. the U=1.6 was based on a smaller-than-accepted genome, which means that the three evolutionists were padding their results. when the full 80k genome is used, they cite a rate of U=3.1. these rates AREN'T a percentage. if you knew anything, you would know that. they mean that there is a 100% chance that each new baby will have about 3 new deleterious mutations in addition to what it's parents have.


This is "invoked"? Can you show me conclusive data that shows synergistic epistasis is wrong?

i don't have to prove it wrong, as it only would explain how 39 children of the 40 would die off. it doesn't address the fact that humans HAVEN'T had 40 kids each. even that would just maintain the baseline that the parents had.


Source #4: A christian philosophy book written by Walter Remine, a guy who's got a masters degree in electric engineering (not physics, genetics, chemistry, or anything that has to do with evolution).

can you not read? walter remine wrote a book and described the problem renowned geneticist J.B.S. Haldane had found elegantly. walter remine didn't do the research, he merely summed up the problem haldane found in an elegant fashion.

i've already shown that talkorigins uses outdated and completely wrong information. it is a biased source that constantly lies.


If p = the probability of a individual not receiving a defect, then p should equal 98.4%, since U = 1.6 according to the unsourced claim above.

i'm not sure how you came up with "U=1.6" as meaning "a deleterious mutation rate of 1.6%". do you see a "%" anywhere? besides, the 1.6 rate is based off data that was padded, and even the evolutionists who did the research admitted that the rate was 3.1 when they used a full functional genome of 80k.


For B: This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Women produce various amounts of offspring. The number isn't always 2, and our population is growing, so saying that 2 is average to even out the population doesn't necessarily reflect what is actually happening in the real world.

*sigh* you're less educated than i thought. the formula assumes that two people have at least two kids. this would mean that the population stays exactly the same.

i'm not even going to address the rest of that paragraph because you don't even know what "U=3.1" stands for. your math is completely wrong.


The math does not add up, and isn't accurate by a longshot.

LMAO!!!
that's because you took the rate to be a percentage. your mistake, not the articles.


to quickly explain your mistake (and i'm using 3.1 because that is the number they got when they used a fully functioning genome. 1.6 was an attempt to pad their research and has natural selection already factored in. very "scientific" indeed) every child has a 100% chance of being born with 3.1 new harmful mutations.
edit on 27-1-2012 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

for the actual calculation, you need to use a poisson distribution calculator. go here easycalculation.com... for a simple one to use.

for "average rate of success" they want how many deleterious mutations occurs per individual. put "3". for "poisson random variable" put "0", this means that you want to know the odds of a child being born with zero deleterious mutations with the rate you've put in.

hit enter, you'll get 0.05. you divide this number by 2, since we're assuming the population rate is saying the same, and the two parents must replace themselves. this gives us 0.025. get a calculator and do 1/40, it's 0.025.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Confusion42
 

again, you offer no evidence that proves the two papers i linked wrong. you just say "it's wrong." i thought evolution was backed by lots of evidence? it all dries up when you actually look for it.


Yes "tons of evidence", "mountains of evidence". Yeah I liked when Firepac said this....




"As I have said before, natural selection has already been demonstrated countless times in other experiments thus does not need to be demonstrated in this experiment."


So as others have posted this is NOT natural selection.

This is ARTIFICIAL selection or breeding.

Ok.

So the OP should read:

"Yeast Clumps Which Appear to be Multicellular, Bred From Single Cell Organism"

Was that so hard?




I have a new theory.

The pyramids were not created by the Egyptians.

They formed naturally.

Yes, I know that according to some of the stories and hieroglyphics the "ancient Egyptians" created the pyramids.

This of course is nonsense.

As proof I am going to conduct an experiment in which we create a pyramid (by replicating early conditions using tools and laborers in a quarry) in order to demonstrate that it formed naturally and was not "created" by any supposed intelligent Egyptians.

Yes, using manual labor is a perfectly acceptable way to demonstrate how these pyramids formed on their own, without any labor.


Naturally.


With no Egyptians..............



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Confusion42
 

again, you offer no evidence that proves the two papers i linked wrong. you just say "it's wrong." i thought evolution was backed by lots of evidence? it all dries up when you actually look for it.


Barc's has completely demolished your creationist propaganda source.

And again, NO, in MY thread, I will NOT tolerate to nonsense such as "my evidence is a site whose url includes "fairy + tale + evolution"

I will not go down to your level debate wise. And, again, I will say that "Barc" has completely demolished your propaganda.

Also, I will say this.

God and Evolution do not conflict!

You don't need to be born, and brainwashed into servitude (or war, i.e. middle east) to believe in God

You do NOT need to stone people to death for honor to believe in God!

What if I where to tell you that God WANTS us to learn evolution, because HE want's us to LEARN EVERYTHING!

*The word God doesn't have to mean a "human looking" overlord exists!

I don't use the word God for my believs on this forum because I've been reading here at ATS for awhile and I know my definition of God is nowhere close to yours.

Having said that; Here is what is left:

You have 1 belief

I have my own belief

Alot of other people have other beliefs

And non of this has anything to do with Evolution!

edit on 27-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Confusion42
 

again, you offer no evidence that proves the two papers i linked wrong. you just say "it's wrong." i thought evolution was backed by lots of evidence? it all dries up when you actually look for it.


Yes "tons of evidence", "mountains of evidence". Yeah I liked when Firepac said this....




"As I have said before, natural selection has already been demonstrated countless times in other experiments thus does not need to be demonstrated in this experiment."


So as others have posted this is NOT natural selection.

This is ARTIFICIAL selection or breeding.

Ok.

So the OP should read:

"Yeast Clumps Which Appear to be Multicellular, Bred From Single Cell Organism"

Was that so hard?




I have a new theory.

The pyramids were not created by the Egyptians.

They formed naturally.

Yes, I know that according to some of the stories and hieroglyphics the "ancient Egyptians" created the pyramids.

This of course is nonsense.

As proof I am going to conduct an experiment in which we create a pyramid (by replicating early conditions using tools and laborers in a quarry) in order to demonstrate that it formed naturally and was not "created" by any supposed intelligent Egyptians.

Yes, using manual labor is a perfectly acceptable way to demonstrate how these pyramids formed on their own, without any labor.


Naturally.


With no Egyptians..............











So are you trying to say that artificial selection isn't a mechanism for evolution? Do you seriously want to get embarassed again?

And about the Pyramid thing....there's actually physical PROOF that the Egyptian Pyramids were created. There's ZERO PROOF that life was created. Can you spot the difference?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Wow. You had to resort to personal insults in an pitiful attempt to justify your position. I explained to you I couldn't find the source of the U claim, and yet you insult my intelligence based on not knowing exactly what the U value meant. I read "probability" as based on that website you sourced. Sorry, I might respond later, but I'm feeling a little insulted right now, even though almost everything you said was wrong.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Firepac
 





So are you trying to say that artificial selection isn't a mechanism for evolution?


The science department at Berkeley says it.
Mechanisms the Process of Evolution


Also


Natural selection does not have any foresight.


Under the heading, "Common Misconceptions about Selection" it states


When selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This most often occurs when biologists are waxing poetic about selection. This has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect.


Note that it does not talk Natural Selection but Selection in general.

According to Evolutionary Theory, Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity.

It further stated that


biologists often anthropomorphize. This is unfortunate because it often makes evolutionary arguments sound silly.

Link

Unless you are suggesting that humans used time travel to induce multicellularity in a single celled organism, artificial selection (or breeding), has nothing to do with the mechanisms of evolution.






I also found an interesting statement in regards to fitness.


Also, the word fit is often confused with physically fit. Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.


So how can the experiment in this thread have a leg to stand on in regards to "fitness" of the yeast cells when it is breeding them?




Do you seriously want to get embarassed again? And about the Pyramid thing....there's actually physical PROOF that the Egyptian Pyramids were created. There's ZERO PROOF that life was created. Can you spot the difference?


There is zero evidence that life came from non life via abiogenesis. But you and I both know that "EVOLUTIONARY THEORY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE"

Programs need a programmer.

A man is handed a Swiss army knife with the blade open. He has never seen a Swiss army knife. He later discovers other tools inside the handle that can be accessed by him.

A reasonable person understands that the tool was designed by an intelligent individual.

edit on 28-1-2012 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
key word "artificial" pressure. meaning an outside source created this multicellular yeast infection.

it didn't happen spontaneously, or by accident.

this doesn't confirm evolution, it confirms that a power greater than that of the creature is required for it's creation.

i call that power God.


While it certainly is impressive, it is not singularly unique. We've created life and created the means to end that life. Deciding whether or not we've created more life or more death is the difficult question.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Firepac
 




So are you trying to say that artificial selection isn't a mechanism for evolution?


The science department at Berkeley says it.
Mechanisms the Process of Evolution



Actually the science department at Berkeley says that artifical selection IS a mechanism for evolution.

If you actually bothered to read the website that you post you would've noticed that on the left side of the page there's a section tittled "Mechanisms" and under that section is a link that says "Artificial Selection." Clicking on that link gets you this:

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Quoted from the article:


These common vegetables were cultivated from forms of wild mustard. This is evolution through artificial selection.


Looks like you didn't even read the website that YOU posted. Typical creationists.


Also, a simple google search (something that creationists are incapable of doing) would've gave you plenty of information on the topic.

Natural and Artificial Selection: Mechanism of Evolution...

Artificial Selection

Quoted from the article:


Artificial selection is an artificial mechanism by which evolution can occur.


Tired of being embarassed yet?


Originally posted by dusty1
Also


Natural selection does not have any foresight.


Under the heading, "Common Misconceptions about Selection" it states


When selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This most often occurs when biologists are waxing poetic about selection. This has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect.


Note that it does not talk Natural Selection but Selection in general.

According to Evolutionary Theory, Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity.

It further stated that


biologists often anthropomorphize. This is unfortunate because it often makes evolutionary arguments sound silly.

Link


Originally posted by dusty1
Unless you are suggesting that humans used time travel to induce multicellularity in a single celled organism, artificial selection (or breeding), has nothing to do with the mechanisms of evolution.



So are you suggesting that god used selective breeding to create all the diversity of life? Because that's the only alternative here even if what you said is true, this experiment would still support guided evolution aka "theistic evolution." Please explain how this experiment is suppose to support the talking snake creation theory?


Originally posted by dusty1
I also found an interesting statement in regards to fitness.


Also, the word fit is often confused with physically fit. Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.


So how can the experiment in this thread have a leg to stand on in regards to "fitness" of the yeast cells when it is breeding them?


Because this experiment had absolutely nothing to do with fitness?



Originally posted by dusty1

Do you seriously want to get embarassed again? And about the Pyramid thing....there's actually physical PROOF that the Egyptian Pyramids were created. There's ZERO PROOF that life was created. Can you spot the difference?


There is zero evidence that life came from non life via abiogenesis. But you and I both know that "EVOLUTIONARY THEORY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE"


There's actually a hell of a lot more evidence for abiogenesis than "invisible sky daddy." Sorry you lose on that one too.



Originally posted by dusty1
Programs need a programmer.

A man is handed a Swiss army knife with the blade open. He has never seen a Swiss army knife. He later discovers other tools inside the handle that can be accessed by him.

A reasonable person understands that the tool was designed by an intelligent individual.


So if this same man was handed a snowflake would he conclude that it was designed too?


Okay listen, it is the talking snake cultists who are constantly demanding laboratory evidence for evolution but at the same won't accept any evidence that's "artificial" (is that a contradiction or what?)

Now answer me this, what kind of lab experiment would you accept as evidence for evolution since all lab experiments are artifical?
edit on 28-1-2012 by Firepac because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 



Barc's has completely demolished your creationist propaganda source. And again, NO, in MY thread, I will NOT tolerate to nonsense such as "my evidence is a site whose url includes "fairy + tale + evolution" I will not go down to your level debate wise. And, again, I will say that "Barc" has completely demolished your propaganda.


you say he "demolished" my creationist propaganda source, yet i destroyed his debunking of that source. did you not read how he took "U=3.1" to mean a deleterious mutation rate of 3%?

sorry, but the title of a site has nothing to do with the validity of it's arguments. it is a logical fallacy to claim otherwise.

your whole post is more "you're wrong" without any scientific evidence to back it up.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Wow. You had to resort to personal insults in an pitiful attempt to justify your position. I explained to you I couldn't find the source of the U claim, and yet you insult my intelligence based on not knowing exactly what the U value meant. I read "probability" as based on that website you sourced. Sorry, I might respond later, but I'm feeling a little insulted right now, even though almost everything you said was wrong.

i really don't have to do anything to insult your intelligence.

here is the link to the article where i got the U=3 mutation rate. it was done by two evolutionary scientists for the university of arizona.

to clarify my position, the odds that two parents can replace each other with offspring that don't have any deleterious mutations is 1/40. this means that for the population to stay the same (which it has grown drastically) two parents must statistically produce 40 kids for 2 of their kids to not have any deleterious mutations. it is safe to say that this doesn't happen. ergo, evolution is wrong.

to get a glimpse of evolutionary scientist's bias towards their theory:


The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction



While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.

the evolutionary scientists say that the evidence contradicts evolution and that their mechanism for deleterious mutations to be removed from the genome can't happen because the organisms would go extinct. then they say that extreme truncation is "unlikely" BUT it must happen because evolution MUST be correct.

what happened to following the evidence wherever it may lead? this isn't science! failed theories are supposed to be tossed out, not kept!



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will
"Artificial pressure" just means pressure either higher or lower than the average pressure at current atmospheric conditions. A lot of you are getting thrown off by semantics.

In nature, there are ALL KINDS of bizarre environments where the temperature is wildly different, pressure is wildly diferent, exposure to light is different, etc. What if in nature, these yeast cells were under 1000 feet of water? That's totally natural pressure, but far greater than you'd find in a laboratory - to simulate that, you would need to create "artificial" pressure. The "artificial" environment is found ALL over nature - but to study it under laboratory conditions they have to use methods like this.
It's still artificial and controlled by an intelligence, humans. Or would you say that plastics are a natural occurrence, because it happens with natural chemicals but under artificial heat and pressure? It was consciously made to do that, whether you like it or not.

It's kind of funny. For some reason, people tend to believe that someday people will be able to throw a bunch of chemicals together to form a cell, and then say that it happened by "accident", while the whole recipe and experiment was designed in the first place.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   


Actually the science department at Berkeley says that artifical selection IS a mechanism for evolution.


So millions and millions of years ago when single celled organisms "evolved" into multicelled organisms, artificial selection was a mechanism of evolution?

The list on Bekeley's website for Mechanisms of change:

Mutation
Migration
Genetic Drift
Natural Selection

I already saw the page Artificial Selection listed under mechanisms on the side, when I originally posted the link.

Please show me where it specifically states that Artificial Selection is a mechanism of evolution.


Your links states:


Natural selection is the driving force of evolution. The environment selects the winners and losers. In artificial selection we are the shapers of other living things.


It further states:


Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, the process in nature by which only the organisms that are best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics to the next generation. Individuals less well adapted to their environment tend to be eliminated, where environment represents the combined biological and physical influences.


So Natural Selection is the Mechanism.

But we just kinda shape organisms a tiny bit with artificial selection.

RationalWiki


It contrasts to natural selection in that it is both intentional and guided


So Natural Selection is this huge driving unguided evolutionary force that disproves a Creator.

Why do you continue to harp on Artificial Selection?





So are you suggesting that god used selective breeding to create all the diversity of life?


No





Now answer me this, what kind of lab experiment would you accept as evidence for evolution since all lab experiments are artifical?
reply to post by Firepac
 


What kind of experiment designed and implemented by intelligent beings trying to prove that life came about without design or intelligence would I accept?

Please.

Most on this thread didn't even read the "study", the OP waxed philosophic about "moral" yeast. some claimed the experiment merely replicated early environmental conditions.

I am involved to a degree with the marketing industry.

I know the difference between what you think you read and what it actually says.

If you believe that the experimenters are not marketing themselves, I have an evolutionary bridge to sell you.

I'll tell you what.

When science can bring back to me everyone who I ever loved.

We'll talk........



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


It doesn't really matter. The formula is still bunk and everything I brought up about the BS website was true, other than the fact that I misinterpreted an unsourced claim of U. Now that you've provided that I'll go back and show you exactly where else the formula is faulty. I never claimed I was educated in genetic mutations or that I was a scientist who studied it. Chances are you aren't either, so don't insult my intelligence when your best claim is a website called evolutionfairytale.com that sources experiments and draws ridiculous conclusions from them that aren't cited in the original experiments and don't even come close to explaining how we "couldn't have possibly evolved". 1/40 mutation rate suggests we couldn't have possibly been created by anything intelligent. It's got nothing to do with evolution.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


It doesn't really matter. The formula is still bunk and everything I brought up about the BS website was true, other than the fact that I misinterpreted an unsourced claim of U. Now that you've provided that I'll go back and show you exactly where else the formula is faulty. I never claimed I was educated in genetic mutations or that I was a scientist who studied it. Chances are you aren't either, so don't insult my intelligence when your best claim is a website called evolutionfairytale.com that sources experiments and draws ridiculous conclusions from them that aren't cited in the original experiments and don't even come close to explaining how we "couldn't have possibly evolved". 1/40 mutation rate suggests we couldn't have possibly been created by anything intelligent. It's got nothing to do with evolution.


the formula they used has nothing to do with what the article is saying. it's a variant of a poisson distribution formula used in statistics to determine an unknown probability.

as i've said loads of times, the numbers are based off of research done by evolutionary scientists. i've posted links DIRECTLY to their articles, since you had trouble finding them. U=3 was found by two different groups of scientists, and both groups wrote their own papers on it.

you haven't debunked anything of the articles i posted.



never claimed I was educated in genetic mutations or that I was a scientist who studied it. Chances are you aren't either, so don't insult my intelligence when your best claim is a website called evolutionfairytale.com that sources experiments and draws ridiculous conclusions from them that aren't cited in the original experiments and don't even come close to explaining how we "couldn't have possibly evolved".

i love science. it's always come to me very easily. can you not see how you're no better than a religious fanatic? this article: Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans is where the numbers come from. the research was done by evolutionists. lets see what evolutionary scientists say on the matter:


The estimated genomic deleterious mutation rate, U, is thus ∼3 (U = 175 x 0.017), with a minimum value of 1.5 (U = 91 x 0.017) and a maximum value of 4 (U = 238 x 0.017), based on differences in divergence time, generation length, and ancestral effective population size.

so the U=3 rate i gave is accurate, which means that two parents must have 40 kids to replace themselves with offspring that are about at their genetic equilibrium. there is nothing wrong with the formula, nor with the scientific evidence. you seem to be unable to accept that evolution is impossible.


The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction

what he is sugar coating here is that humans could not evolve. that's what he means by "paradox". though it is only a paradox if you accept evolution as true. if you see that evolution is wrong, there is no problem.

i'm not trying to trick you. evidence is evidence. humans couldn't have evolved.


1/40 mutation rate suggests we couldn't have possibly been created by anything intelligent. It's got nothing to do with evolution.

on the contrary. such mutation rates confirm that we were created a finite time ago. we were created as completely human, and ever since then, or genetic code has been wearing down. the rate of mutations has everything to do with evolution. if humans haven't had over 40 kids per pair of humans, then evolution hasn't happened. it can't happen.




top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join