What is evolution, not what some think

a reply to: borntowatch

Well show me the speciation, just go right ahead and show it off, no links.

Mice were introduced to the island of Madeira about 500 years ago. Over the course of 1500-2000 successive generations, they've diverged into six distinct populations, which all differ from each other in terms of the number of chromosomes, ranging from 22 to 30. It's a case that catches all some of the main parts of evolution -- isolation of populations (in this case geographic), mutation, selection.

We're actually observing speciation in one particular species of birds -- S. atricapillab. They spend most of the year in Germany. When they migrate, the larger population migrates to Spain while a smaller population migrates to Great Britain. The two groups are becoming more and more genetically divergent from each other over time, I think about thirty generations have been observed so far. Granted, that they will become two different species is still speculation at this point, there's a strong case to be made that they will and so they continue to be studied.

Prove your science, if you can. Dont get a link to do it, dont use a piece of paper, carry the burden yourself.

I've given you two examples of observed speciation, one that has already occurred and one that we're watching unfold in real time. There are thousands more. The evidence for why these are two observed instances of speciation would fill a thread in and of itself. If you're interested in actually learning more about why scientists call this speciation and the evidence to support it, I would be happy to provide you with links so you can read it for yourself instead of cutting and pasting the information, which is actually against the T&C of ATS.

As for my paranoid rants, they are no different than the paranoid rants of those addressing the creation site links posted. Atheists act no different

Can you show me an example of an atheist on ATS who, when someone posted a link to a creationist site, refused to read it because the person who posted it was trying to control them or tell them what to think? Because that was your argument for not going to any of the links provided to you which contained evidence -- that we were trying to "control you" and "tell you what to think".

I dont read links as I cant question links, you read them and agree, I disagree and cant question what they say.

I'm fairly certain that if someone here provides you with a link, and you want to disagree with something you found at that link, you could easily post your point of disagreement here and have it discussed. Science is open source and recursive, it's why papers aren't just published with conclusions. They're published with experimental methods and (often) large lists of citations so people can understand work upon which the new experiments were based. Again, this comment by you shows a deep and fundamental understanding of how science works on your part.

a reply to: borntowatch

Bacteria turning into bacteria is not good enough for me, maybe thats a clue for you

The bigger clue is that you saying, "bacteria turning into bacteria is not good enough for me," just means you'll never acknowledge, much less accept, the evidence for a view that conflicts with your religious beliefs. Again, some honesty from you would be great.

Tell me what new information was added to that ecoli bacteria, what evolved, show me the evidence of new information being added, no cowardly links full of irrelevant information, hard evidence

You know that information theory has zero bearing on evolution, right? That Dembski's ideas have been thoroughly and roundly discredited? Oh, of course not. Why would I think that? You don't read links that you don't know you'll agree with ahead of time.

In the Lenski case, which is most likely what's being referred to when discussion observed speciation in E. coli, the bacteria evolved the ability to utilize citrate as an energy source. The hard evidence? That they were unable to do so for for the first thirty thousand or so generations, and then able to. In fact, the lack of an ability to metabolize citrate is one of the hallmarks by which scientists differentiate E. coli from other bacteria. And, contrary to your earlier claims, they've been able to reproduce these results. So evolution really is reproducible.

It's really sad that you call sources of objective evidence "cowardly" and "irrelevant". What passes for objective evidence in your world?

Show me where and how new information in its genetic code was added and how and then I will have a clue, if you cant then we both dont have a clue

Since you're the one demanding evidence of the addition of information to the genetic code, I can only assume that you're able to define "information" in terms of genetics and gene expression. In your own words of course, none of those pesky links.

here is your chance to prove yourself, your theory, your science your chance to shine beyond any other.

Here is your chance to shove your fingers in your ears and scream "NOPE!!!" beyond any other.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Phantom423


"I guess they think e coli turning into e coli is enough to win every argument I guess they just dont realise I am not here to debate them.
Bacteria turning into bacteria, a mouse into a mouse, wow thats not evolution thats harry potter magic. Imagine how good that would look in a movie, harry potter casts a spell on a mouse then shazzam it turns into a mouse. "

Doesn't have a clue.

Bacteria turning into bacteria is not good enough for me, maybe thats a clue for you


Tell me what new information was added to that ecoli bacteria, what evolved, show me the evidence of new information being added, no cowardly links full of irrelevant information, hard evidence

Show me where and how new information in its genetic code was added and how and then I will have a clue, if you cant then we both dont have a clue

Dont hide behind a link and pages of irrelevant information.

Please you or any other atheist step up and answer the question right here

here is your chance to prove yourself, your theory, your science your chance to shine beyond any other.

"Bacteria turning into bacteria is not good enough for me, maybe thats a clue for you"

If it's not good enough for you, then design your own experiment. Have you done that?

Your question is about as ignorant as the Senator in Louisiana who asked if the bacteria turned into a human being. It shows a complete lack of comprehension as to how science works.

Evolution never said:

1. That monkeys turned into men
2. That speciation occurs instantaneously
3. That phyla skipped over branches of the evolutionary tree to manifest a dinosaur to a bird in one week
4. That eColi turned into a mouse

Evolution and the laboratory experiment did say:

1. That eColi genes mutated to provide new information to the organism - regardless where the nucleic acids came from, the organism was able to formulize new information for its survival. And it wasn't just about citrate metabolism. The behavior, the environmental conditions under which the bacteria can live, the shape, the form - everything changed. It may well be a transformed bacteria now, but the evolutionary tract is on course. Where it ends up, we don't know - and neither do you.
2. The genome of the original eColi is different from the mutated forms. A genome is read like a computer code. You rework the code, another program pops out. It may look the same, but the output is different in a fundamental way. Think of it this way: AI (artificial intelligence) can be considered an evolutionary course of computers. A quantum computer may think and act and on its own. It may look like a computer, but it's not just a piece of hardware on your desk. Evolution of organisms may not be visually apparent, but it's there. Experiments on the human brain have shown that neural network mutations occur under a variety of stresses. The human brain is increasing in size and function. Humans are changing. The next step in evolution is unknown, but we are evolving into a more efficient organism. And the species "human" may be a distant memory some day.
3. The observed evolution of eColi in the laboratory experiments demonstrates the progression of evolution over time. That evolution continues and to the extent that we can't see what the eColi will look like 100,000 to 1,000,000 years from now, there's no doubt that eColi has changed from its original form.

Human DNA is (currently) composed of at least 9% virus and virus particles which have incorporated into the genome. It continues to this day with retroviruses like HIV incorporating into the human genome - possibly permanently.

Creationists simply don't take the time or expend the energy, don't have the curiousity to engage nature, they have no idea what it takes to do genuine research. If they did, they would have evidence to refute the wide-held view that evolution is a fact.

Real science is about hard work, not chaotic rhetoric.

I didn't think it could possibly get funnier but it did.

STOP HIDING BEHIND YOUR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPERS AND EXPERIMENTS!

Did he really suggest that you can't back up science with peer reviewed data to support it? Everybody has to run every experiment themselves or it doesn't count? This guy is too much. Links to science don't prove anything, but apparently links to old outdated archaic religious text proves it's 100% absolute word of god. LMAO. Pure hypocrisy and double standards. Keep it coming and keep justifying why people laugh at your beliefs.

Acknowledged example of horizontal gene-transfer (kleptoplasty) within multicellular organism :
Confirmation That Photosynthesizing Sea Slugs Steal Genes From Algae

Complete study : PDF

I have a life and responding here does not constitute a major part of it, neither does Louisiana though I am sure its a nice place, I don't vote for Louisiana senators or any US politicians, so its a weak argument.

I will respond when time permits.
So far, so not so good, more links and effectively nothing responding to the opening post. Sad you only want to argue what you want to argue and you tuck your tails in regarding my issues.
E Coli, lets go. hammer and nail.

a reply to: borntowatch

I have a life and responding here does not constitute a major part of it,

That's cool. Posting on ATS shouldn't be anybody's life. Though you were able to knock out 21 replies to posts in 3 days before you went silent yesterday...

neither does Louisiana though I am sure its a nice place, I don't vote for Louisiana senators or any US politicians, so its a weak argument.

Huh?

So far, so not so good, more links

There was plenty of information posted for you that didn't include links. Ignoring that as well now?

and effectively nothing responding to the opening post. Sad you only want to argue what you want to argue and you tuck your tails in regarding my issues.

Interesting that you would say that since in one of your more recent posts in this thread, you said the following:

Well show me the speciation, just go right ahead and show it off, no links.

Several of us have done that, and now you're conveniently ignoring it.

E Coli, lets go. hammer and nail.

Already explained, sans links, so go read and come back when you decide which part of you don't believe ever happened.

a reply to: borntowatch

To be blunt, I thoroughly disagree with your decision to start out by negating what others think from the get go.

"What is evolution, Not what some think"

Neither you nor I truly understand what the hell evolution is. At best, we have stories passed down, and a few hundred years of observation.


Neither side can effectively claim a "WIN". But everyone is quick to hold a victory party.


Given your start of a title that dismisses, rather than open invitation to discussion, I have not done more than briefly graze on your opinion.

Sorry mate, but just like trust, a discussion is a two way street. And not one to be started in a negative tone.


Take care.

a reply to: nullafides

Creation vs evolution is a false dilemma. They aren't mutually exclusive and don't even refer to the same thing. Evolution is about life changing and it has mountains of evidence behind it. Creationism is about life being created by an external being, and there isn't any objective evidence for it at all. There is no debate, no argument. It isn't one side versus the other. Creationists love to paint this picture, but the fact of the matter is that BOTH can be true. Evolution, however, is beyond confirmed at this point, so if creationism is true, then it was done via evolution. There is no way around that.

It's not about winning, it's about denying the scientific evidence, rather than addressing it. Science savvy folks are defending the science behind evolution because it is real. Science deniers/Creationists are the ones making the attacks and claiming it is false or "not what some think". The funny thing is, I addressed his OP in detail way back in the thread more than once, and he pretends it never happened. The OP is completely false as far as the "forms of evolution" go. It has been addressed in detail several times pointing out the numerous fallacies, despite him claiming it hasn't been presented. This is why the thread keeps repeating itself over and over. The guy hasn't even researched the basic fundamentals of the theory and already thinks he knows more than scientists that have studied it for decades. That takes one hell of an ego.

To this day, no science denier has ever addressed the evidence behind evolution. They have only straw manned it, equivocated it to other terms, and flat out denied the evidence without reason, as has been done by Borntowatch in this thread, to the T. There is no even playing field here, because they don't have any valid arguments, they just deny in favor of literal bible and quaran translations. Evolution and creation aren't even close to being on equal footing, but they aren't polar opposites at all. The creationists should be attacking abiogenesis instead, but their ignorance of evolution gives them reason to attack it.

a reply to: Barcs

You apparently thought I was looking to debate the OP, rather than ascertain the idea that I was challenging the premise of the discussion to begin with. One which by the title alone was negative and sought to openly discredit those which did not believe the OP's point in the beginning.

I also plainly stated that I was not interested in moving forward with the discussion.

I am still not interested.


Take care.

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: Barcs

You apparently thought I was looking to debate the OP, rather than ascertain the idea that I was challenging the premise of the discussion to begin with. One which by the title alone was negative and sought to openly discredit those which did not agree with the OP's point from the beginning.

I also plainly stated that I was not interested in moving forward with the discussion, let alone any form of participation.

I am still not interested.


Take care.

a reply to: iterationzero

The argument against your examples will be "but those mice turned into different mice, they didn't turn into a dog or a bird or whatever."

Borntowatch thinks about the issue from a young-earth viewpoint... therefore, the concept of "gradual mutation over time eventually leads to a new species and as those mutations continue, the new species can become so different that the relation to the original species is nearly unrecognizable" will be lost on him because he can't conceive of the process taking millions or billions of years. This is one of the reasons why creationists can't grasp the TOE: it first requires accepting the fact that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. This is also why many creationists like to break evolution up into "microevolution" vs "macroevolution" even though they misunderstand the meaning of those two terms. They think that "microevolution" is small changes within a species and "macroevolution" is a species changing into an entirely new animal... while they're sort-of right, they don't understand that macroevolution is the sum of changes described as microevolution and that one is the result of the other. These basic misunderstandings are at the core of every evolution-denier's argument.

To borntowatch, I'm not attempting to speak for you... I'm just retouching on things that were figured out by most of us earlier in this thread.

As I predicted, a disappearing act by BornToWatch. Very typical of Creationists - simply ignore the issue and it goes away.

The difference between stupidity and genius is
that genius has its limits.
Albert Einstein
(1879-1955, German-born theoretical physicist)

a reply to: nullafides

Fair enough. I was mostly addressing the part where you said that neither side could declare a win and I gave the history of this thread for everyone. I thought we were mostly in agreement with exception to the insinuation that neither can be proven or "win". Evolution "wins" because of the large amount of evidence in comparison to something with zero evidence. Sorry about the long winded explanation.

originally posted by: Phantom423
As I predicted, a disappearing act by BornToWatch. Very typical of Creationists - simply ignore the issue and it goes away.

The difference between stupidity and genius is
that genius has its limits.
Albert Einstein
(1879-1955, German-born theoretical physicist)

Don't worry, he'll be back in a few months and pretend again as if no arguments have been made against his faulty premise and the thread will go through another circular cycle of ignorance and denial. He's been doing it for years. It kind of makes you wonder how many different forums he posts on. He must like have 10 of them where he spends a week on each spreading his propaganda.

a reply to: Answer

The argument against your examples will be "but those mice turned into different mice, they didn't turn into a dog or a bird or whatever."

Most likely, but I'd still like to see him respond with that before I assume anything. He asked for instances of speciation, several have been provided. If he wants to move the goalposts, let him do it himself. If "microevolution" is change within a species and "macroevolution" is speciation, then both have been shown to occur.

Borntowatch thinks about the issue from a young-earth viewpoint... therefore, the concept of "gradual mutation over time eventually leads to a new species and as those mutations continue, the new species can become so different that the relation to the original species is nearly unrecognizable" will be lost on him because he can't conceive of the process taking millions or billions of years. This is one of the reasons why creationists can't grasp the TOE: it first requires accepting the fact that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.

If that's the case, and again I know we're not speaking for him, then I'd like to see him rationalize that with the speed of "microevolution" required to go from the "kinds" that Noah would have taken on the Ark to the diversity that we see today.

This is also why many creationists like to break evolution up into "microevolution" vs "macroevolution" even though they misunderstand the meaning of those two terms. They think that "microevolution" is small changes within a species and "macroevolution" is a species changing into an entirely new animal... while they're sort-of right, they don't understand that macroevolution is the sum of changes described as microevolution and that one is the result of the other. These basic misunderstandings are at the core of every evolution-denier's argument.

As my boss likes to say, "This is not my first rodeo." I've been through this more times than I can count with young Earth creationists on these forums. I've seen the arguments and I've seen how they eventually dead-end against the objective evidence. Like I said earlier, I'm not running this into the ground for the benefit of borntowatch; he is most likely unreachable. It's for the lurkers; the people who may have some of these same misgivings or misperceptions about what evolution really is, but aren't as firmly entrenched in their fundamentalism.

a reply to: Barcs

There's always hope for the hopeless


The purpose of challenging each and every one of the Creationists who post at ATS is to archive responses that show hard evidence for evolution. Some of my responses over time have had a lot of detail on various aspects of evolution which are readily available for anyone to use if they need some reference material. I may start a thread with just the reference material which I have accumulated which answers specific questions about evolution.

Sorry Phantom I am just not in the mood to respond.
I can add hundreds of links as a reply and you should and could be happy with that
I wouldnt be.

I have just lost interest for the time being, maybe I will come back, but in truth this argument has been played out for decades.
I have nothing new to add, you and your friends have added nothing new...so whats the point.

Here is a link, simple and clear, even for the layman. In time I may feel it worth discussing in detail.
I know posting a link is at least the height of hypocrisy and I am guilty.
I do lest you think creationists/IDers have no simple and effective answer to your petty little challenge.

www.detectingdesign.com...

What Dr. Lenski did was to grow E. coli under oxic (oxygenated) conditions in citrate-rich media. E. coli bacteria are generally unable to use citrate under oxic conditions as a source of energy. However, they can use it under anoxic conditions. In other words, they already have the gene for citrase in their genome. It is just that it is normally turned off under oxic conditions. How is it turned off? Well, the promoter for the gene that transports citrate into the bacterium (citT) is not active under oxic conditions. So, all that needs to happen is to move the citrate transport gene close to a promoter that is actually active under oxic conditions. Once this is done, citrate will enter the bacterium and be used for energy. And, this is exactly what happened. Nothing structurally new needed to be evolved.

Sorry double