Subscribe to Science & Reason:

http://www.youtube.com/MolecularBioVids

http://www.youtube.com/aronra

http://www.youtube.com/thunderf00t

http://www.youtube.com/cdk007

http://www.youtube.com/potholer54

http://www.youtube.com/potholer54debunks

http://www.youtube.com/shanedk

http://www.youtube.com/andromedaswake

http://www.youtube.com/extantdodo

http://www.youtube.com/DonExodus2

http://www.youtube.com/c0nc0rdance

Duration : 0:8:42


[youtube i1la2HvVs34]


25 Comments

  1. MorganMarvinson
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @ … @TheScienceFoundation Google “Michael Osterhus” “What are the chances” to see what the article intended. He is arguing specifically against “natural selection” in this example.

  2. TheScienceFoundation
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @MorganMarvinson It … @MorganMarvinson It seems the article assumes that the reader has the understanding that natural selection is occurring.

    I already explained how vertebrates pass on their traits, sexual reproduction.

  3. MorganMarvinson
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @MorganMarvinson … @MorganMarvinson but that doesn’t explain how vertebrates pass on traits. (Sorry for the typo.)

  4. MorganMarvinson
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @ … @TheScienceFoundation I’m afraid I am less conversant on these subjects than you are. The source points out the process not being connected to natural selection and his logic seems reasonable to me. I know it interferes with your paradigm, but that is the point of the quotation.

  5. TheScienceFoundation
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @MorganMarvinson … @MorganMarvinson Selection had everything to do with it, if there were no pressure to keep the trait, it wouldn’t have been passed on at a high frequency.

    ‘once a trait is acquired through non-natural selection processes’

    and these non natural processes are?

    Vertebrates pass on traits through something called ‘sexual reproduction’. It’s fascinating first year stuff, you might want to check it out.

  6. MorganMarvinson
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @ … @TheScienceFoundation Apparently, Foundation, you didn’t read the quotation. Selection didn’t have anything to do with it.

    It is possible that, once a trait is acquired through non-natural selection processes, the bacteria passes on the acquired trait through “lateral transfer” in some sort of “evolution,” but that doesn’t explain how vertebrates could pass on traits.

  7. TheScienceFoundation
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @MorganMarvinson … @MorganMarvinson Lenkis Cit+ E. Coli would only mutate the trait again after around the 75% generation time mark, meaning that another crucial mutation occurred in that period which was passed on via drift. Not sure where you’re getting there was no trial and error.

  8. TheScienceFoundation
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @MorganMarvinson No … @MorganMarvinson No, not the whole population at once, the whole population replicates and mutates and if one develops a resistance to a chemical or the ability to metabolize a new food source, then that trait will be passed on via selection.

  9. MorganMarvinson
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    … generations … … generations before the trait was acquired. So what exactly is random about the acquisition of the ability to use citrate? The bacteria were raised in a laboratory so natural selection was not a factor, meaning any useless trait could have evolved and the bacteria’s chances of surviving would be the same as those without the trait. However, the bacteria not only evolved a useful trait without trial and error, but repeated the evolution starting from earlier generations,

  10. MorganMarvinson
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @ … @TheScienceFoundation There you go. The whole population works like the Borg to develop resistance. (Spetner, 175; Lenski)

    “The bacteria suddenly and unpredictably evolved the ability to metabolize citrate–a nutrient that E. coli normally cannot use. Lenski then took frozen ancestors of the population that had acquired the ability and thawed them to see if the same change would take place over again, and it did (Homes, 2008), showing that the changes which resulted in the new trait began …

  11. TheScienceFoundation
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @MorganMarvinson ‘ … @MorganMarvinson ‘That is what they are programmed to do.’

    Source?

    There’s not one organism replicating until they develop resistance, it’s an entire population and then the ones with resistance outlast the ones without.

    Of course natural selection can touch the genome with perfectly a perfectly natural mechanism, favorable traits are passed on, ones that affect survivability are not. So yes, it is projection.

  12. MorganMarvinson
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @ … @TheScienceFoundation Consider the types of the improvements. They’re like the ability of the liver to detoxify things it has never seen before. That is what they are programmed to do.

    Some researchers have commented that “randomness” does not explain how quickly the organism could come up with resistance. They postulate another mechanism.

    Not a projection at all. Natural selection can’t touch the genome unless you give it godlike powers. It only kills the “less fit”–whatever that means.

  13. TheScienceFoundation
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @MorganMarvinson … @MorganMarvinson Yes mutation can improve the code, it can add brand new function.

    There is no ‘god of natural selection’ selection is a natural process that works by known mechanisms, you’re just projecting.

  14. MorganMarvinson
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    @ … @TheScienceFoundation He makes perfect sense. If you MEAN random mutation can improve the code, then this is what you get. He is right. You may BELIEVE it’s something else.

    What the evolutionist is actually doing is invoking the god of natural selection to be able to reach inside the DNA and tweak it for conditions outside the organism. But there is no computer terminal for the DNA on the outside of the organism and the only thing natural selection knows how to do is KILL what doesn’t work.

  15. amorphousguy
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Holy shit, … Holy shit, Potholer54 debunked this nutcase a while back.

  16. vegnagunL
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    You are wrong, if … You are wrong, if it DNA was designed by god, then what are genetuc diseases

  17. solidusspriggan
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    This guy isn’t just … This guy isn’t just an idiot creationist, he is a scammer, if you look into it you find that he wrote on manipulation of google adwords, and has also talked about manipulating the google search algorithm.

    If you google his name and things related to it, you will simply find alot of results that proclaim he is right, and by no means a scammer. This is a sure sign of a scam.

  18. teb0atoz
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    This is another … This is another stupid, sorry for the ad hominium attack, of a christian lack of understanding of what evolution is and how it works. Mutations though random are not the sole bases of evolution the key word is SELECTION. If the mutaion works then the organism thrives if the mutation is not viable then the organism dies. Please do not show your ignorance. Please study the subject your trying to disprove.
    Ignorace is bliss.

  19. VenomFagnX
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Are you kidding? … Are you kidding? The nested hierarchy made from ERV’s is EXACTLY what we would predict to find.

    You’re getting hung up on this complexity issue, evolution is NOT directional, even if genomes were losing complexity now that speaks nothing to 1,000 generations ago.

  20. a01011399
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    mammals do not … mammals do not share ERVs with other clases of animals, as we would expect if all living things share a common ancestor. this fact alone refutes the argument on ERVs.

    besides, if current observations show that genomes are getting simpler as time passes, then evolution is simply wrong. ERVs fossils, DNA, vestigial organs etc. are all secondary evidence, irrelevant if direct evidence contradict evolution

  21. TheScienceFoundation
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    I already have, … I already have, ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. Even if we’d never observed an increase in complexity before, ERV’s put evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

  22. a01011399
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    if you can not … if you can not prove that organisms are getting more complex today, then looking at secondary evidence for evolution is pointless.

  23. TheScienceFoundation
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Anyone who actually … Anyone who actually tries to understand biology is already an evolutionist. It’s already a fact that modern species descended from common ancestors, genetics alone makes this clear.

  24. TheScienceFoundation
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Obviously mutations … Obviously mutations that increased information were chosen at a higher frequency than mutations that decreased information, we’re here

  25. a01011399
    Posted December 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    just rove this … just rove this equation:

    Increase mutations -Decrease mutations = positive number.

    *in a given period of time
    *considering only the mutations that pass to the next generations

    if this equation is proven correct, I will become a evolutionist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>