4 ms·

The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge Except it's not a dodge at all. E-coli is still E-coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate. Regarding Lens

by kirse 18y ago

The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge Except it's not a dodge at all. E-coli is still E-coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate. Regarding Lenski's E-coli experiment, an earlier study on E-coli showed uncultured strains of E-coli can metabolize citrate in low-oxygen conditions: http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160 http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160 So that whole generation 31.5k citrate "evolution" in E-coli wasn't something new, it was a forced adaptation to E-coli by lab conditions. Great job, we yet again proved that a species is capable of adapting to extreme environments within the limits of its genetic makeup -- chalk another one up to micro-evolution and species adaptation. Diane Dodd's fruit flies are still fruit flies, regardless of whether they prefer mates who eat maltose or starch. A fruit fly's preference for a type of mate does not create reproductive isolation (the two types can still reproduce), nor does it even come close to producing an entirely new species. This experiment is barely different than saying humans of a similar race prefer to mate with each other. So again, from an ID perspective there are many holes in macro-evolution because it is entirely, 100% based on the faith in scientists that micro-evolutionary changes will add up. There is not a single macro-evolutionary study (and there never will be, because there isn't enough time) that conclusively proves the change from one type to another. All we have is that we can push a given type to it's pre-defined genetic limits by forced adaptation in lab conditions (Micro). So yes, there is an overwhelming volume of evidence for micro-evolution (which I agree with - species adaptation in an environment and all), but here's the way I see it: Scientists can observe and verify many independent and separate processes (examples: MicroEvolution works and Fossils exist). Each one of these independent, observable items are like small Lego Bricks, all solid pieces that you can build with -- of course, some fit together more properly than others. Except the only problem is that scientists don't have the instructions, nor can they see the picture on the box, nor do they even have a clue how things really get built in the Lego Universe. So what we effectively have is a bunch of scientists that say "Well, these pieces fit together pretty nicely and we created something that looks pretty decent (to us), but we have absolutely no clue if we even built the right thing. Just have faith that the way we linked these pieces together is how it really looks on the box"

KirinDave 18y ago
"E. coli is still E. coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate." Except that one of the defining factors of E. coli is that it cannot process citrate. But hey, I wouldn't want to ruin a perfectly good dodge. And you've also neatly stepped aside the massive genetic evidence of evolution. The fact that we have specific genetic patterns that are clearly shared with proposed precursor species is pretty hard to ignore, which is why nearly all anti-evolutionists never address that evidence head on, instead attacking "macro-evolution" or older arguments like gap-arguments. Except the only problem is that scientists don't have the instructions, nor can you see the picture on the box. So what we effectively have is a bunch of scientists that say "Well, these pieces fit together pretty nicely and we created something that looks pretty decent (to us), but we have absolutely no clue if we even built the right thing. Just have faith that the way we linked these pieces together is how it really looks on the box" Which can be said of all science. Why do you hold special exception for Biology? Physics has core theories that are not entire validated or not understood, and yet you have no problem using a computer that works using principles said principles. Simply put, you're applying inconsistent criterion to these to preserve a non-scientific ideology. You don't have a problem interacting with gravity, electricity, or nutrition (a far less understood science). But the fundamental unifying theory of biology? Well that steps on your minority fundamentalist religious convictions! Time to draw a line in the sand. And the most irritating part about this is you mention ID. The most ironic part of ID is that it's not inconsistent with evolution. Evolution is just the mechanism. It's well within human capacity to design evolving systems, so why couldn't an omniscient God do the same? And indeed, wouldn't this vastly simplify the process? In any event, religious folks always try to mix mechanism with meaning. The mechanism is something we can quantify and describe. The meaning is something you are free to imagine in any way you want. Religion has always been first about meaning and only later goes into mechanism when it begins to amass secular power.
- kirse 18y ago
  ...E. coli is that it cannot process citrate. You must have missed that study I posted where it showed that E-coli already has the capability to process citrate within it's genetic code, it's just typically not utilized. Forcing something to adapt to an extreme environment within its genetic confines is not macro-evolution, thats micro-evolutionary adaptation. Let me repeat it: E-coli that processes glucose already has the ability to process citrate within its DNA. All these experiments have shown is that when you force a species to adapt it will adapt as far as it's genetic boundaries enable it. Which can be said of all science. Why do you hold special exception for Biology? I don't. I am particularly skeptical of Macro-Evolution because (1) it is entirely and completely unobservable and (2) is the human product of many independent processes that have all been linked together. This Macro-Evolutionary "process" is a creation of man, not inherent nor observable in the universe like gravity, electricity, and the effects of nutrition. Unlike physics, which is often provable through observation and mathematics, MacroE is man's attempt to build the unobservable from what can be observed, and I have every right to be skeptical when we move beyond the bounds of explaining the observable to explaining the unobservable.

by kirse 18y ago

KirinDave 18y ago

"E. coli is still E. coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate." Except that one of the defining factors of E. coli is that it cannot process citrate. But hey, I wouldn't want to ruin a perfectly good dodge. And you've also neatly stepped aside the massive genetic evidence of evolution. The fact that we have specific genetic patterns that are clearly shared with proposed precursor species is pretty hard to ignore, which is why nearly all anti-evolutionists never address that evidence head on, instead attacking "macro-evolution" or older arguments like gap-arguments. Except the only problem is that scientists don't have the instructions, nor can you see the picture on the box. So what we effectively have is a bunch of scientists that say "Well, these pieces fit together pretty nicely and we created something that looks pretty decent (to us), but we have absolutely no clue if we even built the right thing. Just have faith that the way we linked these pieces together is how it really looks on the box" Which can be said of all science. Why do you hold special exception for Biology? Physics has core theories that are not entire validated or not understood, and yet you have no problem using a computer that works using principles said principles. Simply put, you're applying inconsistent criterion to these to preserve a non-scientific ideology. You don't have a problem interacting with gravity, electricity, or nutrition (a far less understood science). But the fundamental unifying theory of biology? Well that steps on your minority fundamentalist religious convictions! Time to draw a line in the sand. And the most irritating part about this is you mention ID. The most ironic part of ID is that it's not inconsistent with evolution. Evolution is just the mechanism. It's well within human capacity to design evolving systems, so why couldn't an omniscient God do the same? And indeed, wouldn't this vastly simplify the process? In any event, religious folks always try to mix mechanism with meaning. The mechanism is something we can quantify and describe. The meaning is something you are free to imagine in any way you want. Religion has always been first about meaning and only later goes into mechanism when it begins to amass secular power.

kirse 18y ago
...E. coli is that it cannot process citrate. You must have missed that study I posted where it showed that E-coli already has the capability to process citrate within it's genetic code, it's just typically not utilized. Forcing something to adapt to an extreme environment within its genetic confines is not macro-evolution, thats micro-evolutionary adaptation. Let me repeat it: E-coli that processes glucose already has the ability to process citrate within its DNA. All these experiments have shown is that when you force a species to adapt it will adapt as far as it's genetic boundaries enable it. Which can be said of all science. Why do you hold special exception for Biology? I don't. I am particularly skeptical of Macro-Evolution because (1) it is entirely and completely unobservable and (2) is the human product of many independent processes that have all been linked together. This Macro-Evolutionary "process" is a creation of man, not inherent nor observable in the universe like gravity, electricity, and the effects of nutrition. Unlike physics, which is often provable through observation and mathematics, MacroE is man's attempt to build the unobservable from what can be observed, and I have every right to be skeptical when we move beyond the bounds of explaining the observable to explaining the unobservable.