Creation vs. Evolution

[Warthaug]

The above was concerning my comment that if the mutants were placed back in natural environments they would get outcompeted.

https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/
click on: –publications-complete list-acrobat file (for #180, the PNAS paper)

First full paragraph on page 7904…

“This stable coexistence suggests that the Cit- cells are superior
to the Cit+ cells in competition for glucose, allowing the former
to persist as glucose specialists. Indeed, the Cit- cells have a
shorter lag phase and higher growth rate on glucose than do the
Cit+ cells (Fig. 2).”

However, you're ignoring a rather simple part of evolutionary theory - species evolve to survive in their current environment. There is no drive to maintain fitness for past environments; indeed, such a drive could be quite detrimental. I already used this example, but by your logic we humans are less fit than fish, as we are not as fit in our old (aqueous) environment, as we have lost our gills.

That of course is nonsence; we're superbly adapted to our current environment, and have lost the adaptations we needed when we were lobe-finned fish. By yoiur logic, evolution would only be true if we kept the fins & gills. The same it true of these bacteria - there is little glucose in their environment, compared to their previous environment (which also wasn't natural, but rather a lab, btw), and as such their ability to better use citrate is a vast improvement.

And, as I pointed out in a previous post, depending on which "natural" environment you're talking about, the ability to utilize citrate, even if that comes with poorer glucose metabolism, may still represent an advantage. In the human gut, or inside of human cells, for example - in both of those environments, free citrate is more available than glucose. Which is why many infective e. coli pick up oxic citrate metabolism genes from other species.


Bryan

 

[shoredivr]

Ummm... shordivr? You kind of omitted an important element for those who are "quote challenged...."

Marvel, thanks for pointing out that I omitted the forward slash, it certainly wouldn't help the quote challenged to follow the instructions as I mistyped them.

And my name is shoredivr, not shordivr.....you can see how easy it is to misquote if typing in a hurry or not proofing....

 

[Warthaug]

name your best case. 2nd - Neanderthal is human.

Quite the opposite; genetic analysis has confirmed that Neanderthals represented a distinct, and now extinct, line of humans. We are no more their direct ancestors than I am a direct ancestor of the king of spain.

Chimps are chimps. I've seen the same charts. Many of your missing links are very sketchy based on a few pieces of bone. Complete skulls are non-existant.

A complete fabrication on your part. Complete skeletons, including skulls, have been found for most of our direct descendants. By complete I mean enough of the left/right sides have been found to reconstruct an entier skeleton (we are bilaterally symmetrical, after all).

The ones that do exist are clearly ape, or clearly human.

I doubt, if shown an image, you'd be able to tell the two apart. As a joke, a former colleague of mine (a radiologist) used to mix images of human and ape skeletons in his lectures to other MD's - in the 30-odd years he taught he only got called on it once. There are very few differences, aside from size, between chimp and human skeletons. The only notable difference is in the size of the brain case, and in the shape of the frontal bones of the skull.

In fact, its the relative similarity of the skeletons, along with the genetic sequencing, that has led many researchers to propose that humans and chimps belong to the same genus; rather than the genuses of pan and homo. To quote Richard Dawkins, in "The Dragons of Eden" "humans are little more than tall, hairless chimpanzees".

Bryan

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

In fact, scientists can make big names for themselves by disproving a currently accepted theory and I doubt many of them would have given up that opportunity

This is somewhat irrelevant, but my career is pretty much an example of this. I recently published my last 4 years worth of work, all of which could be summarized "why we were wrong about cell migration for the last 20 years". The papers been out for less than a month, and I've already got several dozen offers to visit various unis and talk about my work. In fact, tomorrow I leave for Italy, where I'm giving the first of the lectures I've agreed to do.

Science thrives on conflict - most of us relish a good fight. I've been at conferences where well respected (and quite elderly) scientists have thrown chairs at each other. Yelling matches are also a common theme at scientific meetings (usually followed up by a making up session [i.e. binge drinking]). Heck, as a grad student I was physically attacked by another student, as I had "scooped" his study.

So anyone who thinks there is a scientific "conspiracy" out there, on any topic, is mad. We don't get fame & fortune by toeing the line - we get fame and fortune by pissing off our peers, making everyone else look like fools, and just generally being antagonistic jerks.

Bryan

 

[shoredivr]

I recently published my last 4 years worth of work, all of which could be summarized "why we were wrong about cell migration for the last 20 years". The papers been out for less than a month, and I've already got several dozen offers to visit various unis and talk about my work. In fact, tomorrow I leave for Italy, where I'm giving the first of the lectures I've agreed to do.

Hey, congratulations!

 

[Theunis]

Posted by Theunis:

I think it is fair to ask not to defame or insult God. I am not asking any atheist to respect or praise God, but I'm sure if members insult or defame somebody or something that is dear to you, you won't stand for it! For me God is holy and sacred and I can't just stand by and say nothing if God is defamed or insulted. If I do it feels for me as if I'm supporting or sanctioning such acts.

My grandchildren reacted similarly as they began to learn that santa clause was not real.

I really had a problem with interpreting your post. Your post went through my mind the whole day while I was working. Are you saying I'm now learning that God doesn't exist? If so, you are making a BIG mistake. If not, please explain yourself.

 

[JeffG]

Posted by Theunis:

I think it is fair to ask not to defame or insult God. I am not asking any atheist to respect or praise God, but I'm sure if members insult or defame somebody or something that is dear to you, you won't stand for it! For me God is holy and sacred and I can't just stand by and say nothing if God is defamed or insulted. If I do it feels for me as if I'm supporting or sanctioning such acts.




I really had a problem with interpreting your post. Your post went through my mind the whole day while I was working. Are you saying I'm now learning that God doesn't exist? If so, you are making a BIG mistake. If not, please explain yourself.

You really need to take step back and take a big deep breath.

 

[Theunis]

You really need to take step back and take a big deep breath.

Jeff, thanks for that. I am going to do just that. It is 18:15 in South Africa now and I'm going to have a beer now.

 

[gary-ramey]

Equally true would be the fictional works of any half-way decent historical novelist. 100% of the landmark references in say, Flashman or Sharpe's Rifles are accurate, and 100% of the events are accurate and all the references to people (save the few fictional characters in the novels) are accurate, but I'd be hard pressed to confuse it with history (did Richard Sharpe really save Nosey? Did he kill the Tippou? Did he "frag" the Prince of Orange at Waterloo? Was Flashman's flatulence the real cause of the Charge of the Light Brigade?).

The biggest difference is your books are intended to be fiction. Josephus's was a historical account.

That's not in agreement with the rules of the game. The rules state (for the umpteenth time) that you need two (2, 10 in binary) CONTEMPORANEOUS crossreferences to document the existance of an historical figure. With respect to Christ, there are zero (0, 00). Joespheus was still in diapers when Jesus (allegedly) met his fate.

You have one in Josephus. Despite your ignorant attempts to discredit him. You have thousands of early church documents that reference him. The Bible has several authors who mention him. The Quran mentions him. You have 10 disciples that went to agonizing deaths who refused to recant their faith. No one who has studied the history of Christ objectively agrees with you. You are so many deviations outside the bell curve on this one its laughable.

you cannot put together an account without even one (not to mention the required two) reliable eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus also mentions Christ

Amazing, you contradict yourself in the same post. So which is it. Are there no references or are did Tacitus mention him? The fact is you continue to dismiss the fact of the gospels. These are a written account of the life of Jesus. Furthermore, you have external references, which you yourself at least acknowledge the one. You also have credible historians who agree Josephus mentions Jesus once in his writings.

A lot of folks want to believe in something and at this time, for many, its Jesus. Belief alone can create intellectual bleed through into secular thought, even down to the most used swears and oaths. Christian authorities advance the view of an “historical” Jesus over and over so that, just through being so oft repeated (remember how well the repeated big lie worked for Hitler and Stalin) it finds a comfy couch in the public consciousness. But it just ain’t so. When one makes an historical claim, the assertion should depend solely on the evidence and not require belief, since beliefs can live comfortably without any evidence what-so-ever

. and You discount the writers in the gospel who went to their deaths believing in this mythical Jesus. Yet, you can believe, without question, in a biped monkey from a few skull fragments found in a mixed basin of bones.

 

[gary-ramey]

The Brontosaurus is a mistake, and no one here is disputing that so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Especially as it is a pretty minor one in the scheme of things...

Because science used this popular dinosaur for years to bait in young populations. Brontosaurus put dinosaurs on the public map. I submit to you it wasn't a simple mistake. Furthermore, It was a deliberate deception and not just on behalf of the scientist involved but all those who held their tongue. Ditto for Piltdown Man. These deceptions point to the fact that men are corrupt and have agendas outside of educating the public. So if these records are false....how many others are? Can you say with certainty none?