Group of 70 scientists from a paleontology conference takes a field trip to the Creation Museum

[Z.Cavaricci]

Originally Posted by Dorian

Right and wrong here.

Microevolution is a fact. Examples of this are dog breeding. However, macroevolution has never been proven. Examples of this would be to get a horse from a dog. In fact, as scientists search for more evidence to support macroevolution, the more they find against it.

The difference here cannot be overemphasized. So evolution can explain some species differences. Okay, I'll buy some of that. But not the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Genus differences.

The final nail in the coffin of macroevolution is microbiology. Microbiology killed it. Buried it. Evolution on a macroscale is garbage.

But since evolution has a grain of truth, we are told to accept the whole package, and overlook the massive holes in the idea.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

[danb]

Originally Posted by Z.Cavaricci

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

This link does not address Dorian's assertion whatsoever, but in the spirit of cherry picking,

- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by danb

You have a lot more on the line if God is real than I do if he ain't.

What an awful reason to be a Christian - instead of embracing the hope and promise, you're an admitted hostage to a philosophy merely hedging your bets against what would happen if you were wrong.

That said, evolution is not "fact". It's the best theory out there, arrived at using the scientific method, which is the crucial core of the argument. Selection processes have been observed, simulated, and documented as happening, but every few things are "fact". As long as the scientific process isn't undermined, I'm happy.

I'm happy as long as you can see that it's very feasible for microorganisms to adapt, mutate and evolve into other things over several billion years (and can agree that the world probably is several billion years old). Biology bores me too much to care about how the amino acids came together to form prokaryotes.

[danb]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

What an awful reason to be a Christian - instead of embracing the hope and promise, you're an admitted hostage to a philosophy merely hedging your bets against what would happen if you were wrong.

You are making assumptions about my beliefs and putting words in my mouth. What you have said about me couldn't be further from the truth. You are making stuff up.

[doc_spartan]

You have a lot more on the line if God is real than I do if he ain't.

We're way off topic on the thread now...but hey...who cares!



See the thing is I just don't believe...I could pretend to believe, I could go to church, I could convince you that I believe...but I don't...and if The God of Abraham exists I doubt pretending to believe would really cut the mustard at judgement time right?

I'm not sure how you came to believe, but for me there has been no inspirational moment, no great revelation, nothing that inspires me to believe in a personal God with a plan for my existence.

I assume your familiar with Pascal's wager...I don't intend to pick one of the worlds religions, then pretend to believe in it, based on the chance that it would happen to be the right religion and I could avoid the mythology of "Hell". Based on your response to Foxbat's post, I'd assume you also would not do any such thing.

[danb]

Originally Posted by doc_spartan

We're way off topic on the thread now...but hey...who cares!



See the thing is I just don't believe...I could pretend to believe, I could go to church, I could convince you that I believe...but I don't...and if The God of Abraham exists I doubt pretending to believe would really cut the mustard at judgement time right?

I'm not sure how you came to believe, but for me there has been no inspirational moment, no great revelation, nothing that inspires me to believe in a personal God with a plan for my existence.

I assume your familiar with Pascal's wager...I don't intend to pick one of the worlds religions, then pretend to believe in it, based on the chance that it would happen to be the right religion and I could avoid the mythology of "Hell". Based on your response to Foxbat's post, I'd assume you also would not do any such thing.

Absolutely! You can't "force" yourself or anyone else into anything genuine. I counsel people to be honest with themselves - nakedly honest. From what I can tell from your writings, you are doing just that. I admire that. You certainly don't need to make excuses or otherwise account for yourself.

Someday, you may feel a spiritual need. You may recognize an emptiness in your life that cannot be filled by anything tangible or mortal. I have talked to people about coming into their faith, and it is never the same for anyone. Some come to it from grief or personal tragedy or hardship. Some find it in joy and success. Some recognize a blessing that they cannot otherwise account for. Some don't connect to anything particular in their lives. But whatever the circumstances, God reveals himself. That's the only way I can put it. And most times it isn't a singular event like you hear a lot about. It's like a gradual awakening of consiousness, and can occur in fits and starts.

Myself, fwiw, I was baptized into the catholic church as an infant, learned the religion as a youth, and abruptly left the whole thing to embark on my own path to faith. I didn't really believe in any of that stuff. I didn't have any faith in anything. I really wasn't on any kind of a spiritual journey. But eventually it found me.

[Gotham_Spartan]

Originally Posted by Dorian

The final nail in the coffin of macroevolution is microbiology. Microbiology killed it. Buried it. Evolution on a macroscale is garbage.

How? From what I have read, some of the best evidence for macroevolution comes from microbiology.

No idea what you're talking aboutly yours,

[doc_spartan]

The final nail in the coffin of macroevolution is microbiology. Microbiology killed it. Buried it. Evolution on a macroscale is garbage.

Come on Dorian...we're all really interested in this "final nail in the coffin of macro evolution" related to microbiology....please share?

[doc_spartan]

Still hoping for a reply from Dorian....

[doc_spartan]

I'm going to keep bumping until we get a response from Dorian

[danb]

Originally Posted by doc_spartan

Still hoping for a reply from Dorian....

Me too!

[doc_spartan]

I'm confident that Dorian has some real knowlege here....anxious to here about the latest revalation in microbiology that is the nail in the coffin on evolution.....

Maybe Dorian is on vacation?

[TorontoSpartan87]

Originally Posted by danb

Me too!

Why don't you go donate while you're waiting?

5,000 posts and you can't send a little something Trevor's way?

[TorontoSpartan87]

Originally Posted by doc_spartan

I'm confident that Dorian has some real knowlege here....anxious to here about the latest revalation in microbiology that is the nail in the coffin on evolution.....

Maybe Dorian's brain is on vacation?

fixed

[danb]

Originally Posted by TorontoSpartan87

Why don't you go donate while you're waiting?

5,000 posts and you can't send a little something Trevor's way?

I'm waiting for someone else to donate their money in my name, or give me their money so I can send it in or keep it.

[goState18]

Originally Posted by arfabe16

how do people still doubt evolution?

Not everyone necessarily believes that extrapolation is solid ground for science to stand on.

[Green Genes]

Originally Posted by doc_spartan

I'm curious though...what is the definition of life at its simplest component? Are viruses "alive"

This is a discussion point I use in my classes all the time and it leads to a lot of interesting debates among students. Personally, I do not view viruses as "alive" but I understand and respect the arguments of those who do consider them "alive". One of my main arguments is based on their mechanism of replication. To me, living things divide and produce "identical" living things. Viruses on the other hand enter a host cell and cease to exist until new virus particles are assembled and released.

[Green Genes]

I think you are also guilty of putting your own words in other people's mouths. You are the one who brought up the concept of "life from rocks" and not anyone else on the "other side". Those on the "other side" are simply trying to bring the discussion back to the original topic which is evolution. As many others keep trying to tell you, the origin of life is a separate issue from evolution. Evolution does not explain the origins of life and is not intended to do so. Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of life and how it came about from common ancestors.

It doesn't take "faith" to believe in the spontaneous origins of life, just an understanding of chemistry.

Originally Posted by danb

If you claim ignorance on how life started than you are one of very few people who attack people who believe God created man that do.

I have been told by several on this board during their attacks on people like me who disagree with them that life began spontaneously in a random molecular event. Pure chance. Nothing caused it. It just occurred.

This is a big deal and the fundamental question that either legitimates or negates the world view of the moral relativists who feel man is the supreme being. If God indeed exists, and created man, the whole thing blows up. Absolute morality from God given natural law becomes a very inconvenient truth.

I am skeptical of the random spontaneous origin of life. My position is that it takes a lot more faith to believe in that than in God.

[Green Genes]

These are good points but I think you might want to consider revising some of your definitions a little. What do you mean by "Take in energy"? What about photosynthesis? I'm not sure I would consider that "taking in energy". What do you mean by "Process waste"? Based on your definitions, a lot of bacteria would not be considered "alive" For example, many bacteria cannot reproduce without a host cell. Pathogens such as the Chlamydia or Rickettsia can only replicate in host cells. There are also some interesting symbionts of organisms such as the deep sea tube worms (Riftia) which cannot be cultured outside of their host. Are they former free living bacteria which are evolving into organelles? Should they be considered "alive"?

Originally Posted by doc_spartan

In order to successfully create something defined as "life" the requirements should be:

1) Take in energy
2) Process waste
3) Able to reproduce without other life forms (not a parasite)

In order to say we have demonstrated that life on earth could have come into existence in a specific manner that life should have:

1) been created in a circumstance that could have existed on primordial earth
2) be cellular
3) be constructed of the same twenty amino acids all life uses
4) use DNA / RNA as the method of recording genetic information

[Green Genes]

As many others have stated ... Microbiology puts the "nail in the coffin" of macroevolution? This I have got to hear. If anything, microbiology provides the greatest evidence in support of evolution (of course, as a microbiologist, I may be a little biased ). I usually run into people who will accept evolution in microorganisms but dismiss it as "microevolution" and argue that evolution of microorganisms cannot explain "macroevolution". Of course, scientifically, there is not such thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution" but that is a different argument.

On to your other statements. Dog breeding is not an example of evolution. Dog breeding does not lead to speciation (that's why we have all those lovely mutts that come from odd combinations of breeds). Dog breeding is artificial selection.

Evolution does not claim that you can get a horse from a dog or vice-versa. Evolution explains that dogs and horses have a common ancestor. Once the two lineages separated, the dog lineage would have to mutate back into the common ancestor in order to lead to the horse lineage. The farther down the lineage you get, the harder it becomes to "go back".

I'll give you a cool example in which microbiology supports evolution of "higher" organisms. Aphids have a symbiotic bacterium called Buchnera that lives in a structure called a bacteriocyte. The aphid/Buchnera relationship is an obligate symbiosis - they depend on each other. If you generate a phylogenetic tree of the aphids and a phylogenetic tree of the Buchnera and then superimpose them, they match perfectly - a beautiful example of co-evolution. Once this obligate relationship was established, the bacteria and the aphids evolved in synch with each other.

Originally Posted by Dorian

Right and wrong here.

Microevolution is a fact. Examples of this are dog breeding. However, macroevolution has never been proven. Examples of this would be to get a horse from a dog. In fact, as scientists search for more evidence to support macroevolution, the more they find against it.

The difference here cannot be overemphasized. So evolution can explain some species differences. Okay, I'll buy some of that. But not the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Genus differences.

The final nail in the coffin of macroevolution is microbiology. Microbiology killed it. Buried it. Evolution on a macroscale is garbage.

But since evolution has a grain of truth, we are told to accept the whole package, and overlook the massive holes in the idea.

[Green Genes]

These critiques are weak at best and full of misunderstanding and overinterpretation. There is way too much material to go through point by point but I'll mention a couple of things. In the critique of Evidence 17 - Functional Molecular Evidence - Protein Functional Redundancy, the critique is full of contradictions and misunderstandings regarding conserved and variable domains of proteins. They also misunderstand quotes from Venter and Watson regarding the human genome and the shift from the "one gene, one enzyme" paradigm. They take a statement that basically says we have a lot more to learn about the human genome and how 30,000 genes can lead to 300,000 different proteins and interpret that to mean that we no longer know what the gene for cytochrome c codes for.

Originally Posted by danb

This link does not address Dorian's assertion whatsoever, but in the spirit of cherry picking,

- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

[Cym Jim]

Originally Posted by Green Genes

What do you mean by "Take in energy"? What about photosynthesis? I'm not sure I would consider that "taking in energy".

Why not? Isn't light energy "taken in" during the light-dependent reactions, exciting electrons, and ultimately converted to chemical energy in the bonds of ATP and NADPH in photosystems 1 and 2? It's been a while though!

[Green Genes]

It is just the choice of words that I am addressing. "Take in energy" sounds like ingestion so the use of "take in energy" and "process waste" sounds a little eukaryote centric and maybe even animal centric. As a microbiologist, it is my duty to raise awareness of the microbial world and point out that they do some things quite differently than other organisms .

With photosynthesis, it is hard to think of light as something that is "taken in". You are more or less correct that a photon of light excites electrons which can be used to make ATP in photosystem 2 and NADPH in photosystem 1 but cells don't "take in" a photon, the photon strikes the antenna complex. Just a side note - plants and cyanobacteria use photosystems 1 and 2 but there are prokaryotes that do different types of photophosphorylation including archaea that use rhodopsin-like proteins to pump protons directly across the cell membrane.

By the way, what paper are you and GS talking about? Obviously, I'm bored and trying to avoid working on a grant proposal so I could use some light reading .

Originally Posted by Cym Jim

Why not? Isn't light energy "taken in" during the light-dependent reactions, exciting electrons, and ultimately converted to chemical energy in the bonds of ATP and NADPH in photosystems 1 and 2? It's been a while though!

[Cym Jim]

Originally Posted by Green Genes

With photosynthesis, it is hard to think of light as something that is "taken in". You are more or less correct that a photon of light excites electrons which can be used to make ATP in photosystem 2 and NADPH in photosystem 1 but cells don't "take in" a photon, the photon strikes the antenna complex.

Yeah, the photon "just" strikes the complex, but doesn't some of its energy ultimately end up in the bonds of ATP and NADPH? That seems like "taking in" to me. I'll PM you about the paper - you'll enjoy it!

[WixomSpartan]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

Accepting evolution and 150 years of science does not mean rejecting God.

Corrrect. And criticizing Evolution theory does not make one a 'creationist'.