Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#104313 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Some garbage sites i reviewed, peer reviewed to make you happy;
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp...
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/351625
http://www.iris.ethz.ch/msrl/publications/fil...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23818629
http://biocyc.org/ECOLI/new-image...
All these use electric motor analogy in attempts to explain the axial device, most express an inability to understand how much of it works. They all take an observational standpoint, like man looking into space and saying "wow". None attempt to explain the sequence control or proton magnitude control of the coil pulse, they stick to torque/speed measurements which appear analogous to PLC's, as they observe step incremental changes in speed and torque rather than analog changes, go figure.
That second link is to an abstract of a review paper. In the abstract in tells us that it will provide an overview of a number of components of bacterial physiology, genetics and structure including bacterial motility. Did you read the actual paper? Out of curiosity, what did you get from that reference that supports your position? We can't tell from our side, since it just says it will tell us all about it in the rest of the paper.

Another paper on how the flagellum senses load and changes speed. That doesn't say anything about the evolution of the flagellum. Another on nanotechnology modeled on the bacterial flagellum. Nothing there to support your point and no mention of evolution either.

No wonder you don't find papers including "evolution" and bacterial flagellar motor". You aren't looking for them.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#104314 Nov 2, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here go Dan
So you write story about walking tree. You good Bohart. You like Wizard of Oz.

Keep clicking Dorothy. You go home maybe.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104315 Nov 2, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
His Yale article link wasn't good enough?
"His" Yale article did not agree with him. It was of no use to his claim.

You really have taken a turn to the stupid side the last few nights.

What is wrong with you? Trouble at home?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#104316 Nov 2, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here go Dan
Yes, you clearly know nothing about the science. You can apply for a job at Campbells if you want, but I think they require that there employees don't drool.

Walking trees? What a brilliant example. I think you are wasting time on examining tree mobility, when you focusing on that cognitive ability you think trees have. You would definitely join the pantheons of science if you can show how trees decide to evolve the ability to walk.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#104317 Nov 2, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Coming soon ! I'll explain how beef stew emerged through natural processes alone without any intelligent design.
Yes, you are clearly so well versed in science that you probably think antimatter is a political position.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#104318 Nov 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
"His" Yale article did not agree with him. It was of no use to his claim.
You really have taken a turn to the stupid side the last few nights.
What is wrong with you? Trouble at home?
His girlfriend left him.

Well she sprung a leak anyway.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#104319 Nov 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
"His" Yale article did not agree with him. It was of no use to his claim.
You really have taken a turn to the stupid side the last few nights.
What is wrong with you? Trouble at home?
Replay is ignoring me these days. He thinks it bothers me. I assume since it bothers him he figures everyone else is too.

I like it. I can say whatever I want and he won't challenge it. You know what they say. Silence is agreement.

I see you have been slapping him around so much, he has foaming at the mouth.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#104320 Nov 2, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Coming soon ! I'll explain how beef stew emerged through natural processes alone without any intelligent design.
If you would focus your thinking around the last four words in your second sentence, you would be on your way to gaining some knowledge of science.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104321 Nov 2, 2013
SBT wrote:
At least on Star Wars, Back to the Future or Star Trek, we have Luke, the Professor and Scotty, and you folks have the Time God.
This from the person who claimed that a picture of a bacterium with a flagellum justified the idiotic claim that biologists thought bacteria emerged from the primordial soup with a fully fledged flagellum.

And now to your next dumb strawman.

No biologist would regard "give it time" as a sufficient explanation. That is the dumbest misrepresentation yet.

Biologists understand a mechanism of evolutionary change - mutation and natural selection. It happens to be a process that takes considerable time. That is not the same thing as saying time is the mechanism. Building a mountain range through tectonic plate movement takes time but nobody claims the Time God is the mechanism responsible for mountain building.

I marvel at your claims to be involved with complex engineering when you make such basic logical errors. But then perhaps you are not really that stupid, you just hope your audience is. No doubt morons are applauding your "clever" Time God argument.

As to the flagellum. Behe claimed it was irreducibly complex. Biologists have amply demonstrated that this is false. Blather all you like, nobody can prove the irreducible complexity of anything. Its more smoke and mirrors.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104322 Nov 3, 2013
The same old stories. God created the universe. The universe can not be said to evolve without a cause or maker.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#104323 Nov 3, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Coming soon ! I'll explain how beef stew emerged through natural processes alone without any intelligent design.
Evolutionary researchers are looking for alien stew these days, it seems. You may be interested in this research below, if you haven't seen it already.

Evolution predicts that the fundamental molecular processes within the cell, that perform functions common to all life, are conserved and originate from a common ancestor.

Initially it appeared that this prediction was confirmed. However recent research surprisingly confirms that the protein sequences of several central components of the DNA replication machinery, above all the principal replicative polymerases, show very little or no sequence similarity between bacteria and archaea/eukaryotes.

Here is published research that seriously challenges the credibility of the current evolutionary paradigm and supports a creationist paradigm and predictions.

"Epistemological issues in the study of microbial life: alternative terran biospheres?"

Abstract
The assumption that all life on Earth today shares the same basic molecular architecture and biochemistry is part of the paradigm of modern biology. This paper argues that there is little theoretical or empirical support for this widely held assumption.

..... Significantly, the most powerful molecular biology techniques available-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of rRNA genes augmented by metagenomic analysis-could not detect such microbes if they existed. Given the profound philosophical and scientific importance that such a discovery would represent, a dedicated search for 'shadow microbes'(heretofore unrecognized 'alien' forms of terran microbial life) seems in order.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053938

Here above we see evolutionary researchers inadvertently supporting creationists predictions and claims in principle, while falsifying the current evolutionary paradigm..THERE ARE NO COMMON ANCESTORS BETWEEN MAN AND MICROBE.

Since: Oct 13

Lancaster, SC

#104324 Nov 3, 2013
EVOLUTION was CREATED by something or somebody. God??

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104325 Nov 3, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionary researchers are looking for alien stew these days, it seems. You may be interested in this research below, if you haven't seen it already.
Evolution predicts that the fundamental molecular processes within the cell, that perform functions common to all life, are conserved and originate from a common ancestor.
No, "common ancestry" predicts this, not evolution. There is, obviously, common ancestry in evolutionary predictions back to a certain point but there is no reason it has to be all the way to the base.

If life originated in two lines (or more), either by splitting very early in the protocell stage or even beginning entirely separately, then significant deep level differences between bacteria (+ all eukaryotes) and archaea are perfectly possible within the evolutionary framework.

One early life hypothesis proposed a splitting before even the cell wall was established, in a deep sea smoker environment.

So you are jumping to a conclusion on what evolution is supposed to predict, then attacking the straw man.

I would say, on the other hand, that the presence of at least two deeply different, functioning biological systems in life on Earth is good circumstantial evidence that a multitude of coherent bio-chemical systems are possible and that this suggests life may be common in the universe.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104326 Nov 3, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
The same old stories. God created the universe. The universe can not be said to evolve without a cause or maker.
Yes, you are supporting the same old stories.

Scientists, on the other hand, are trying to work out what happened by looking at reality instead.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104327 Nov 3, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Coming soon ! I'll explain how beef stew emerged through natural processes alone without any intelligent design.
A cow fell into a hot spring.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#104328 Nov 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, "common ancestry" predicts this, not evolution. There is, obviously, common ancestry in evolutionary predictions back to a certain point but there is no reason it has to be all the way to the base.
If life originated in two lines (or more), either by splitting very early in the protocell stage or even beginning entirely separately, then significant deep level differences between bacteria (+ all eukaryotes) and archaea are perfectly possible within the evolutionary framework.
One early life hypothesis proposed a splitting before even the cell wall was established, in a deep sea smoker environment.
So you are jumping to a conclusion on what evolution is supposed to predict, then attacking the straw man.
I would say, on the other hand, that the presence of at least two deeply different, functioning biological systems in life on Earth is good circumstantial evidence that a multitude of coherent bio-chemical systems are possible and that this suggests life may be common in the universe.
No, I am not jumping to any conclusion. My conclusion is shared by the evolutionary researchers quoted. If you would like to contest that conclusion perhaps you could also provide some empirical research of your own, to support your opinion.

See!

"Abstract
The assumption that all life on Earth today shares the same basic molecular architecture and biochemistry is part of the paradigm of modern biology. This paper argues that there is little theoretical or empirical support for this widely held assumption."

Regardless of your opinion, the research clearly falsifies the current evolutionary paradigm, yet again, and supports the claim that there are no common ancestors between man and microbe.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#104329 Nov 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A cow fell into a hot spring.
Exactly. The carbon cycle requires life. Life requires the carbon cycle. Which came first?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#104330 Nov 3, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. The carbon cycle requires life. Life requires the carbon cycle. Which came first?
Maz! You're back. Where have you been hiding?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#104331 Nov 3, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Maz! You're back. Where have you been hiding?
I took a long long break and have been back a little while chatting, or rather arguing, with other theists.

And you? Have you had any new discussions recently?

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104332 Nov 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This from the person who claimed that a picture of a bacterium with a flagellum justified the idiotic claim that biologists thought bacteria emerged from the primordial soup with a fully fledged flagellum.
And now to your next dumb strawman.
No biologist would regard "give it time" as a sufficient explanation. That is the dumbest misrepresentation yet.
Biologists understand a mechanism of evolutionary change - mutation and natural selection. It happens to be a process that takes considerable time. That is not the same thing as saying time is the mechanism. Building a mountain range through tectonic plate movement takes time but nobody claims the Time God is the mechanism responsible for mountain building.
I marvel at your claims to be involved with complex engineering when you make such basic logical errors. But then perhaps you are not really that stupid, you just hope your audience is. No doubt morons are applauding your "clever" Time God argument.
As to the flagellum. Behe claimed it was irreducibly complex. Biologists have amply demonstrated that this is false. Blather all you like, nobody can prove the irreducible complexity of anything. Its more smoke and mirrors.
A pleasant philosophic argument, but not a shred of evidence to refute what I presented from a science perspective, and the typical blame Behe wrap-up. So please elaborate on my "basic logical errors", you could even quote Berg from Harvard, who in one paper simply states the motor took "billions" of years to evolve, then skips the topic and gets into the science, that all? No mention how it evolved, its stages, not a thing, just this little disclaimer. I that enough? I think not, he doesn't want to go there, no way. Same from his Yale counterpart. So just follow that trail for a while and where does it lead? a talkorigins imposter. Like the cell, the more they research the more complicated these motors are found to be, then to the rescue commeth a cadre of laymen saying it evolved, with only words for evidence. To those of us on the technology side who have to apply intelligence to matter everyday too make a real living in the real world, the situation is obvious.

It's a proton powered motor that measures out protons by counts,(e.coli is 32) it has electromotive power we don't understand nor can replicate, it activates (11 coils in e.coli) each coil is in a azimuth sequence, may activate fwd and rev and varies speed at will, some types spin @ >1000, other's 100,000 rpm. To accomplish this a controller is involved to trigger the flow of protons in measured quantities to each coil. 11 X 100,000 = 1,100,000 pulses/min. Each coil seems to have a load sensor and then this controller(like any properly programmed PLC) applies more protons in STEP increments and can even switch between fwd/rev to get the creature unstuck, like rocking your car out of a ditch. It has a clutch. If you believe all that came about by mindless accidents and chance so be it. I tell you that's a "belief system based on faith", it's not scientific no matter how many biologists line up to say it is. So you have your chance, explain the load sensor and its evolution. Explain where each coil came from and got oriented, connected and decided it would be proton activated. Tell us how the controller got programmed, and on and on and on.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 5 min whatimeisit 30,040
The BIZARRE reasons why men rape in India 17 min Suhani Si Ek Ladki 1,108
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 19 min whatimeisit 26,737
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 25 min Hoosier Hillbilly 55,303
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 31 min Hoosier Hillbilly 7,605
4 Word Game (Use Same Letter) 42 min Hoosier Hillbilly 278
True or False Game 54 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1,302
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr stray-cat 152,734
7 Teens Come Home Pregnant From School Trip 2 hr Joker 72
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 3 hr Dave 25,833
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 7 hr andet1987 2,989
More from around the web