Greyclouds
October 27th, 2009, 10:12 am
While I am loathe to make another evolution thread (#345678, if anyone is counting, :lol: ), another thread in the Washington Politics forum is getting off track. Here is a post from one of the posters in that thread and my counterpoints.
My darling is at work.
But the response is as follows:
Lenski lab e.coli experiments. - shows only that organisms are equipped
to adapt which is micro evolution as provided by God - it still does not
support macro evolution which is life from non life
Go to wiki to see it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
This is incorrect. The presence of Citrate transportation (which is the trait that the E.coli populations developed in the Lenski experiments) is a larger change on E.coli expression and metabolism, and it's development was predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
First of all, Citrate is a metabolic intermediate that cannot pass the lipid bilayer without dedicated transport systems. As such, it's a "safe" sugar metabolism intermediate, insofar as while the cell digests sugars, it doesn't have to "worry" about its meal suddenly floating away! So, the ability of the cell to transport this metabolic intermediate from its environment INTO its own cytoplasm (and to prevent it from escaping as well!) is a very specific and beneficial (in a citrate broth) trait! If you've studied other membrane translocation proteins, they are revealed to be HARDLY the simplistic peptide systems that a suffix of "micro" would imply! I will not go into details on the steric hinderence, amino acid compositions, molecular affinities and formed hydration shells involved in metabolite transport, but entire BOOKS are written on the tiniest details of metabolite transport!
This experiment's outcome was also predicted even by Darwin's initial hypothesis. Here's how: The theory of Evolution posits that traits that are beneficial to an organism in their environment will be more likely to be passed onto the next generation of offspring. SO, the Theory of Evolution (which has existed for quite some time, yes?) predicted the reported (and confirmed) outcome of this experiment.
Now, my question to those who support ID is two-fold:
1. Did Intelligent Design predict the outcome of this experiment through it's central tenant of Irreducible Complexity? Or is the Theory of Evolution with its central tenant of Natural Selection a better fit for the data.
2. What is the boundary for a "macro" and a "micro" evolutionary event?
As for mitochondrial DNA
The same evidence supports commonality of design.
Only if you believe that such design was mistaken or prone laziness through cutting and pasting errors.
For instance, the mitochondrial genome has the same G+C content as an alpha-proteobacterium, a Circular genome, its own tRNA and ribosomes (which are analogous to bacterial elements), and some mitochondrial genes have been lost from its genome and instead are translocated into the animal pan-genome.
So, commonality of design would imply that the designer used the most inefficient method possible in bringing ATP Synthesis via Oxygen Respiration to multicellular Eukaryotes. He did the following:
1. Put an energy drain on cells by having them maintain obligate endosymbionts (mitochondria) with their own replication machinery apart from the rest of the cell.
2. Made the mitochondria compete with their host cell for resources.
3. Increased cell-surface to volume ratio of Eukaryotic cells to account for the increased bulk of the necessary symbionts.
Go to Case For A Creator sweetie - the first scientist interviewed -
smokin'
Also go to Signature of God and my little book form the Adventists
If this *SOME GUY* is a geneticist, he will fail to consider other scientific
evidence.
He can be overwhelmed with the easy stuff
The eye
Flagella and cilia
Irreducible complexity
Scientific knowledge in the bible that predates their discoveries like
skin of the teeth, dead mans blood, 8 days for the blood to appear in a
fetus, the description of the formation of a child from the outside in
not the inside out, earth as an orb, anti-microbiological principles in
the law as written
By Moses thousands of years before the discovery of microbes and at the
same time the Egyptians who educated him were using feces in their
remedies
.[/SIZE][/I][/B]
You were saying?
And yet, there are scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. The purification ritual for Leprosy fails to indict the actual culprit of the disease, M. leprae.
Also, there is no creation timeline for the existence of bacteria.
As for the eye, bacterial rhodopsin.
Flagella are protein aggregates that cluster outside of type-three secretion system protein anchors.
Irreducible complexity is based off of an argument from incredulity. It has no purpose in science apart from banning all of scientific thought and exploration. Its central tenant has been repeatedly rebuked by new discoveries, such as the fact that proteins are FAR MORE Multi-functional than we first believed in the 1950's! Sadly, ID has not progressed from that era of scientific thought...
My darling is at work.
But the response is as follows:
Lenski lab e.coli experiments. - shows only that organisms are equipped
to adapt which is micro evolution as provided by God - it still does not
support macro evolution which is life from non life
Go to wiki to see it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
This is incorrect. The presence of Citrate transportation (which is the trait that the E.coli populations developed in the Lenski experiments) is a larger change on E.coli expression and metabolism, and it's development was predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
First of all, Citrate is a metabolic intermediate that cannot pass the lipid bilayer without dedicated transport systems. As such, it's a "safe" sugar metabolism intermediate, insofar as while the cell digests sugars, it doesn't have to "worry" about its meal suddenly floating away! So, the ability of the cell to transport this metabolic intermediate from its environment INTO its own cytoplasm (and to prevent it from escaping as well!) is a very specific and beneficial (in a citrate broth) trait! If you've studied other membrane translocation proteins, they are revealed to be HARDLY the simplistic peptide systems that a suffix of "micro" would imply! I will not go into details on the steric hinderence, amino acid compositions, molecular affinities and formed hydration shells involved in metabolite transport, but entire BOOKS are written on the tiniest details of metabolite transport!
This experiment's outcome was also predicted even by Darwin's initial hypothesis. Here's how: The theory of Evolution posits that traits that are beneficial to an organism in their environment will be more likely to be passed onto the next generation of offspring. SO, the Theory of Evolution (which has existed for quite some time, yes?) predicted the reported (and confirmed) outcome of this experiment.
Now, my question to those who support ID is two-fold:
1. Did Intelligent Design predict the outcome of this experiment through it's central tenant of Irreducible Complexity? Or is the Theory of Evolution with its central tenant of Natural Selection a better fit for the data.
2. What is the boundary for a "macro" and a "micro" evolutionary event?
As for mitochondrial DNA
The same evidence supports commonality of design.
Only if you believe that such design was mistaken or prone laziness through cutting and pasting errors.
For instance, the mitochondrial genome has the same G+C content as an alpha-proteobacterium, a Circular genome, its own tRNA and ribosomes (which are analogous to bacterial elements), and some mitochondrial genes have been lost from its genome and instead are translocated into the animal pan-genome.
So, commonality of design would imply that the designer used the most inefficient method possible in bringing ATP Synthesis via Oxygen Respiration to multicellular Eukaryotes. He did the following:
1. Put an energy drain on cells by having them maintain obligate endosymbionts (mitochondria) with their own replication machinery apart from the rest of the cell.
2. Made the mitochondria compete with their host cell for resources.
3. Increased cell-surface to volume ratio of Eukaryotic cells to account for the increased bulk of the necessary symbionts.
Go to Case For A Creator sweetie - the first scientist interviewed -
smokin'
Also go to Signature of God and my little book form the Adventists
If this *SOME GUY* is a geneticist, he will fail to consider other scientific
evidence.
He can be overwhelmed with the easy stuff
The eye
Flagella and cilia
Irreducible complexity
Scientific knowledge in the bible that predates their discoveries like
skin of the teeth, dead mans blood, 8 days for the blood to appear in a
fetus, the description of the formation of a child from the outside in
not the inside out, earth as an orb, anti-microbiological principles in
the law as written
By Moses thousands of years before the discovery of microbes and at the
same time the Egyptians who educated him were using feces in their
remedies
.[/SIZE][/I][/B]
You were saying?
And yet, there are scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. The purification ritual for Leprosy fails to indict the actual culprit of the disease, M. leprae.
Also, there is no creation timeline for the existence of bacteria.
As for the eye, bacterial rhodopsin.
Flagella are protein aggregates that cluster outside of type-three secretion system protein anchors.
Irreducible complexity is based off of an argument from incredulity. It has no purpose in science apart from banning all of scientific thought and exploration. Its central tenant has been repeatedly rebuked by new discoveries, such as the fact that proteins are FAR MORE Multi-functional than we first believed in the 1950's! Sadly, ID has not progressed from that era of scientific thought...