Why Evolutiontheory is just a theory and not an Evidence

[ScimitarXEdge]

MORON!

11 new species doesn't that the species is new, but aside from the one they found the new gene, another 11 were discovered to have THE SAME GENE!!!!!

Ok 10 years later when they do become a different species...then I ll be proven wrong...for the time being...it hasn't ...so pleas stfu and don't read seletively.

to quote you

" 11 new species doesn't that the species is new".....seriously? I believe your brain has a worm in it from all the pork you consume.

That sentence doesn't even make sense. even if I wrote that in correct grammar. New Species means they'e new. That's the definition of new dimwit. Let's see how you logically get around that one "Just because something is new doesn't mean it's new, because something can be new without being new" ....You've really flunked this round, the most miserably you have since the original evolution debates.

They already showed that the new species evolved, did you read the conclusion; or is it all the haughty pomp you flail to pretend that everyone else is uneducated on the subject and doesn't understand the material, really about yourself?


You've been debunked, once again.

[ScimitarXEdge]

notice his reply was as follows

"insult" ...and then denial of the evidence.

I could tolerate the appeal to ridicule if it was supplied with a cogent rebuttal, but instead it was supplemented with a logically absurd statement, not to mention goofy grammar.

[ozymandias]

notice his reply was as follows

"insult" ...and then denial of the evidence.

I could tolerate the appeal to ridicule if it was supplied with a cogent rebuttal, but instead it was supplemented with a logically absurd statement, not to mention goofy grammar.

Take it with a grain of salt, and be the bigger man. All he does with the insults is point out the fact that he has so little basis for his claims he needs to result to arguing like a child. It does nothing but show that one side is overly emotional, and close minded to the evidence, and the other side is calmly rational, and willing to investigate the issues, as they don't have an emotional stake in the outcome.

[Alchemist]

Moving the goalposts. In the context of this conversation, that was not the original assumption.

It was. If it wasn't then it wouldn't have been used an example of evolution. You could point to frogs having poisonous venom on their skin but that doesn't mean it is proof of evolution. Or Tigers having fangs...or Humans having thumbs...etc etc etc.

Even given that point, that's how science works. Int he light of new evidence, you revise the ideas to meet all evidence. You have yet to show hos this disproves evolution.

Originally the books were writing conjecturally then the evidence was found only a decade ago, now those assumptions have no validity hence the anti biotic resistance is not proof of evolution. (It's OK...another 2 months and You ll finally get it son)

No, you have not. You have simply shown that this particular instance of evolution may have occurred earlier than was thought. That doesn't disprove evolution.

Earlier or never!

There is no proof that it did occur because we don't know how the resistance came to be. What interaction is there between e.coli, which lives in your intestines, and a fungus that produces peniciline and isn't even a stable part of our diet?

Huh? I have corrected your definition of species. I have corrected your claim that speciation has never occurred. I have corrected your claim that donkeys and horses are the same species. I have corrected your assumption that evolution means the resultant organism would be better suited than it's ancestors in all cases. I have corrected your claim that humans and neanderthals only share 4% of their DNA.

No. You haven't corrected. You even refuse to define speciation. The definition I have used is used by biologists and scientists. I even quoted a scientist who used the same definition I have. And you still said that the scientist's definition was "sloppy"...you are only deluding your self into think that you know better when you don't even know. Spare me the theatrics and no I don't care if you don't like " netiquettes".

And yes, evolution does say that "evolved" species are suppose to be better adapted than their predecessors. Their population is suppose to displace their predecessors because they are better able to compete for the same resources and ecological niches.

I never said that humans and neaderthals share 4% DNA...you seem to be suffering from dyslexia like our friend sissymitardulledge. The article I quoted clearly stated that modern humans have 4% neanderthal DNA. You went on a tangent to say that humans and chimps share 95% DNA - statement which is in self questionable (and if you know the details of the study and read previous threads like I told you to, you would know why). So really I can't help it if you are very good at fooling your self.

Need I go on?

Sure buddy.

Suuuuure.

Prove me wrong. Go ahead. Drop knowledge on me. Dazzle me. Say something smart. Teach me something of biology that I don't know. Say something scientific for a change. Can you?

Where do you get that from? I never said I was lazy, intellectually or otherwise. There you go making stuff up again.

Prove me wrong. Make a scientific statement. (And try not to copy paste from talk origin again...you embarrassed your self enough already like that)

Feel free to cite the studies validating your claim the DNA has not changed in 3 billion years -- or even your original 1 billion year claim. I'll gladly read it.

I already did. Did you follow the link?

You seem to rather dull and stupid since you don't know the mutation rates of prokaryotes and what it is that scientists actually measure to know what keeps bacteria bacteria through out the ages. You just know the word DNA, you don't even know what it stands for, how it regulates it self. Just having the same genes doesn't mean they will also have the same function. The complexity of the interactions involved are beyound the scope of your understanding. It is know that bacteria have been the same because what they metabolize, the products of which, have been the same, and their sources of energy have been consumed in the same. This isn't CSI miami buddy... Follow the link...and read the journal article. Here I ll post it for you again:
A genomic timescale of prokaryote evolution: insights into the origin of methanogenesis, phototrophy, and the colonization of land

Good luck with that

Of course not -- why would I? There is a huge difference between speciation occurring -- which is two gene pools diverging, and your claim that the DNA has not changed in 1 billion years. DNA continues to change after speciation. Heck - I even cited a modern E.Coli study that has shown that in the last few dozen years, we have seen major changes in E.Coli.

No, what you cited again was an article which you didn't even understand. It was based on a 20 year long study that tried to induce speciation but failed. Instead the authors of the paper only managed to induce citrate catabolization and that too at a cost. There pseudogenes that can be activated under the right conditions. That is hardly proof for "speciation". Grasping for straws much?

Did you click on the link where scientists shows bacteria that existed today existed 3 billion years ago? That is what the scientists are saying ...and your saying that they are wrong? Someone call The Nobel Prize Academy, this dude here is coming up with his own theories.

It's really damaging to your case that it *HAS*.

Where?

False.

Prove me wrong.

Apparently you haven't even read a single book on evolution! If you had you would know that it is only an assumed phenomena.

False.

Your own delusion buddy.

False.

It's true..ur delusional. Evidence is presented but you can't digest. Not my fault.

False.

Prove me wrong. Say something smart.

False. Speciation, by definition, is macroevolution.

I agree...it is by definition. But the evidence only points to micro evolution.

It's ok... I ll give you 2 more months until it seeps into your thick skull.

False.



F

alse. If had not been observed, you might be right -- but you are mistaken, and it has been observed.

Maybe in your dreams you observed. Or in some movie. Oh wait... I know ... X-Men Evolution. Duh!

You claimed the DNA for E.Coli has not changed for 1 billion years. You made

the claim, you provide the evidence. That's how this works. I am aware that no DNA 1 billion years old exists, and have pointed that out.

Of course DNA can't survive for over 1 billion years but the scientists assume that the nature of these organisms have not changed in billions of years...there is no evidence to suggest that it has. And where ever they do assume that it has it is only to match the wider narrative of evolution.

What evidence? All we have so far is your baseless claim.

The article I posted earlier. Click on it. You can even google it. This is like the time you went into denial for over a week. You couldn't believe that anti biotic resistance is ancient history ...and kept asking for proof and I kept shoving it in your face until finally you accepted it.

You seem to think that no species has remained the same in over a billion years?

The horseshoe crab has been the same for 500 million years, that is half a billion years. This is hilarious because a while back ago another evolutionist was trying to prove that bluegreen algae fossils are without any doubt 3 billion years old .. and now here you come along doubting that. The nutty professors.

Not at all. Evolution is driven by changes in DNA, so that statement you made is absurd.

Every single nucleotide in a bacteria gets changed within 8 hours! But bacteria is still bacteria at the end of the day.

99.99% of all mutations that do occur are harmful and result in a loss-of-function. The onus is on you to show cases of beneficial mutations. Every day thousands of scientists induce mutation into rats, flies, worms and viruses and bacteria ...do you see X-men evolving yet?

Citation needed.

So what? I am going to cite you now? Are you dumb?

Citation needed. I clearly understand it better than you do.

Not even. You just say you do.

You make silly remarks like "change in DNA drives evolution...DNA changes from generation to generation but species all have remained the same. that isn't even remotely the premise of evolution. Please go understand the subject first.
Show cases where species that have diverged couldn't possibly mate together again because their chromosomes had changed so much they couldn't even pair. That never happens!

I never had a problem with that. You are the one providing a definition of 'species' that claims otherwise.

Nope... that is what you think.

I'm sorry that you assume to know everything and refuse to admit when you are wrong. We can work on that, though. I will continue to provide facts and evidence and correct you when you are wrong, and you will have a chance to learn.

I am still waiting on the evidence buddy...

In none of your posts so far have I seen evidence...just denial.

go wipe the sweat of your face...you are too desperate to keep your ego intact.

[Alchemist]

Stop crying sissymirt...

"11 new species"... Oh wow ... "NEW SPECIES" LOL

fool .. you can't even read an article properly. They found other species with the new gene, and your taking the phrase out of context to mean that ELEVEN NEW species were discovered.

Genius...how do you get ELEVEN new species that are only a species because of having a anti biotic resistive gene?

Think man... just think for a change.

[ScimitarXEdge]

New Species, means NEW species, not "other species", that were existing; if the authors wanted to say "other species" who had anti biotic resistance, they would have said "other species" with anti biotic resistance. not NEW species. New species, does not in this context mean anything other than species which has newly evolved

You answered your own question, within the question itself; the New species is a result of having new genes for anti biotic resistance.

You're trying to use a Fallacy of Equivocation to scapegoat, but even then it's false, New doesn't mean "other".

Your argument failed....Think? You can't even compehend a simple word like "New".

[ScimitarXEdge]

notice in his reply he's also shifting focus from the other article I posted.....this is one of the tactics he uses in debate ....diverting from evidence which is inconvenient for him to respond to.

[ozymandias]

It was. If it wasn't then it wouldn't have been used an example of evolution. You could point to frogs having poisonous venom on their skin but that doesn't mean it is proof of evolution. Or Tigers having fangs...or Humans having thumbs...etc etc etc.

You *could* point to those things -- but in this case we have a specific stressor to point at as well, making those comparisons less useful than this one.

Originally the books were writing conjecturally then the evidence was found only a decade ago, now those assumptions have no validity hence the anti biotic resistance is not proof of evolution. (It's OK...another 2 months and You ll finally get it son)

I'm working on it. One of these days you will admit that you were wrong about evolution. I already got you to admit your definition of a species if wrong.

Earlier or never!

Have fun proving that 'never'.

There is no proof that it did occur because we don't know how the resistance came to be. What interaction is there between e.coli, which lives in your intestines, and a fungus that produces peniciline and isn't even a stable part of our diet?

You mean that fungus that grows in damp environments, and is known to frequently be found growing on food items? Gee, I don't know how they would have come into contact with each other.

No. You haven't corrected.

I have repeatedly. You even admit that donkeys and horses are not the same species, now.

You even refuse to define speciation.

You refuse to ask for me to do so. This falls under the same stipulations of you asking me to define a species.

The definition I have used is used by biologists and scientists.

Doesn't mean you use the definition correctly or appropriately. That is a non-scientific definition used for the ease of speech.

I even quoted a scientist who used the same definition I have.

And he was using it in a specific instance, and was not abusing it. He used that definition to refer only to sexually reproducing species, not to mention the fact that he added a clause that required the offspring to be fertile, which he consistently failed to do.

And you still said that the scientist's definition was "sloppy"

No, you are being sloppy, applying the definition for a species that requires sexual reproduction to apply to asexual creatures.

...you are only deluding your self into think that you know better when you don't even know. Spare me the theatrics and no I don't care if you don't like " netiquettes".

I don't care if you care.

And yes, evolution does say that "evolved" species are suppose to be better adapted than their predecessors.

But not in *all environments*! Only for the environment they evolved into. By your logic, humans should be better evolved to live in water than fish, because we are more evolved. This is patently absurd. Evolution only seeks the best fit to a given environment, not all of them.

Their population is suppose to displace their predecessors because they are better able to compete for the same resources and ecological niches.

Not true at all. They can evolve into *other* niches -- like with drug resistant bacteria. They evolved into a niche non-resistant bacteria cannot even compete in -- as it dies out completely. Their fitness for an antibiotic rich environment does not mean they are suited for one missing that condition.

I never said that humans and neaderthals share 4% DNA...you seem to be suffering from dyslexia like our friend sissymitardulledge. The article I quoted clearly stated that modern humans have 4% neanderthal DNA. You went on a tangent to say that humans and chimps share 95% DNA - statement which is in self questionable (and if you know the details of the study and read previous threads like I told you to, you would know why). So really I can't help it if you are very good at fooling your self.

You may wish to go back and re-read that conversation. I stated that your 4% claim is absurd because humans share more than that with other species that were less similar than the neanderthals -- and guess what? I was right!

Sure buddy.

Suuuuure.


Of course DNA can't survive for over 1 billion years

Well, there goes any chance you had of proving your claim that the DNA of E.Coli has not changed in 1 billion years. Add that to the study I posted showing that they have observed the DNA changes in E.Coli in a laboratory setting, and you have no legs to stand on.

but the scientists assume that the nature of these organisms have not changed in billions of years..

Assumptions are not evidence.

.there is no evidence to suggest that it has. And where ever they do assume that it has it is only to match the wider narrative of evolution.

Citation needed.

The article I posted earlier. Click on it. You can even google it. This is like the time you went into denial for over a week. You couldn't believe that anti biotic resistance is ancient history ...and kept asking for proof and I kept shoving it in your face until finally you accepted it.

Once again, you have failed to disprove evolution, only that the timeline for the evolution of antibiotic resistance started earlier than was once thought.

You seem to think that no species has remained the same in over a billion years?

I'm not doubting that -- I am doubting your assertion that the DNA has not changed in over a billion years. There is a huge difference.

The horseshoe crab has been the same for 500 million years, that is half a billion years. This is hilarious because a while back ago another evolutionist was trying to prove that bluegreen algae fossils are without any doubt 3 billion years old .. and now here you come along doubting that. The nutty professors.

Once again you create a straw man. I look like my father -- so by your logic our DNA is identical? That's preposterous.

Every single nucleotide in a bacteria gets changed within 8 hours! But bacteria is still bacteria at the end of the day.

Evolution is not a fast process. It takes multiple generations, not hours.

99.99% of all mutations that do occur are harmful and result in a loss-of-function. The onus is on you to show cases of beneficial mutations.

Antibiotic resistance. The ability to consume citrate. Done. Two convenient examples.

Every day thousands of scientists induce mutation into rats, flies, worms and viruses and bacteria ...do you see X-men evolving yet?

X-men is fiction. The genetically inheritable traits caused by mutation is a stable of modern biology.

So what? I am going to cite you now? Are you dumb?

If you insist on making lies about what I actually say, I am going to insist on citations. If you are going to claim I am arguing *against* evolution, I am going to need more than your word on that.

Not even. You just say you do.

I indeed say so -- and then follow it up with case after case of me correcting you.

You make silly remarks like "change in DNA drives evolution...DNA changes from generation to generation but species all have remained the same". that isn't even remotely the premise of evolution. Please go understand the subject first.
Show cases where species that have diverged couldn't possibly mate together again because their chromosomes had changed so much they couldn't even pair. That never happens!

Please stop making up outright lies, and then claiming them as quotes from me. I am not going to refute your strawman, as I never stated that.

Nope... that is what you think.

Your definition has been that 'a species is a group of creatures capable of mating' and have repeatedly stated that. Only when I pressed did you change it append 'and give birth to viable offspring' -- and you still have yet to even address fertility, other than the articles that disprove your own definition.

I am still waiting on the evidence buddy...

In none of your posts so far have I seen evidence...just denial.

go wipe the sweat of your face...you are too desperate to keep your ego intact.

Nice pep-talk you give yourself at the end of your posts. Don't worry, we will make sure we go slow enough for you to keep up.

[Alchemist]

Tsk tsk tsk...

You *could* point to those things -- but in this case we have a specific stressor to point at as well, making those comparisons less useful than this one.

Stressor eh?

How about the fact that Streptomyces (a genus of Actinobacteria) are producers of 2/3rds of antibiotics used medicinely. Streptomyces, according to evolutionary scientists, have existed for 500 million years. What stressor was there 500 million years for streptomyces (550 species) to produce antibiotic "resistance" at a time when there weren't any pharmacies?





I

'm working on it. One of these days you will admit that you were wrong about evolution. I already got you to admit your definition of a species if wrong.

Sure I did. I agreed with you that the definition of species used by biologists is wrong...because you think so. Sure buddy... whatever you say

Have fun proving that 'never'.

have fun proving 'ever'.

You mean that fungus that grows in damp environments, and is known to frequently be found growing on food items? Gee, I don't know how they would have come into contact with each other.

Gee... the fact that bacteria was producing antibiotics before there were even fungus around...gee now you didn't know that now...did you? Do you know what they suppose? Horizontal Gene Transfer. Do you know what that means? I'll give you a hint - it doesn't mean evolution LOL

I have repeatedly. You even admit that donkeys and horses are not the same species, now.

Of course they are not. They cannot produce offsprings that can mate with each other. Get it?
(2 more months and you will...some people are slow learners)

You refuse to ask for me to do so. This falls under the same stipulations of you asking me to define a species.

Define species.

Doesn't mean you use the definition correctly or appropriately. That is a non-scientific definition used for the ease of speech.

Easy of explaining it to a dimwit like you. You still don't get it ... maybe I should draw figures next time.

And he was using it in a specific instance, and was not abusing it. He used that definition to refer only to sexually reproducing species, not to mention the fact that he added a clause that required the offspring to be fertile, which he consistently failed to do.

viable = fertile.
Able to reproduce. Have generation after generation of offsprings. Gee...I guess I should have drawn figures and tables to make you understand.

No, you are being sloppy, applying the definition for a species that requires sexual reproduction to apply to asexual creatures.

Asexual creatures produce clones. Clones are genetically identical so obviously they are of the same species. Asexually reproducing organisms can easily be identified as a species... a definition is not even needed! They can be known simply by their characteristics and traits.

The definition is sound. You think asexually reproducing organisms don't fit the definition of species simply because they are not sexually reproducing...but the reason the word species has to be defined is to distinguish between sexually reproducing organisms. Those organisms that cannot inter breed are of different species. Simple Logic. You lack it. Think about it some more. Let it seep into through your skull... 2 months. Trust me. Scimitar is the same as you. Can't teach an old dog new tricks ...etc etc.

I don't care if you care.

Good! Because I don't ... you old fart.

But not in *all environments*! Only for the environment they evolved into. By your logic, humans should be better evolved to live in water than fish, because we are more evolved. This is patently absurd. Evolution only seeks the best fit to a given environment, not all of them.

How are we "more" evolved?

You call your self a logician?

We are not more evolved. If anything it could be argue that we are less evolved. If you study the role of humans and our ability to "cope" with our environment we are a total disaster. We behave more like a virus the way we colonize the earth and deplete resources and produce toxic waste that corrodes the environment.

Cockroaches are better evolved than we are.

And why would we be "better" evolved to live in water than fish? That is a totally asinine statement. The more you try to free lance on biology and ecology the more ridiculous your arguments become.

I suppose you are assuming that our predecessors are fish? LOL

Not true at all. They can evolve into *other* niches -- like with drug resistant bacteria. They evolved into a niche non-resistant bacteria cannot even compete in -- as it dies out completely. Their fitness for an antibiotic rich environment does not mean they are suited for one missing that condition.

WTF are you talking about dude?

How about the bacteria in your intestines?

And what the flip is a "antibiotic rich enviornment"? A hospital? You crazy? A hospital is one of the most unsanitary places in the city. You know why? Because unlike restaurants, they don't get checked for sanitation.

So I don't know what it is you smoke when you come with such silly rebuttals. Not all bacteria have resistance, so every time you do get sore throat, you don't need to take antibiotics either. The reason why all this hype persists is because most physicians know that antibiotics are over prescribed. The beef you eat is already pumped with enough antibiotics for you...oh even your lettuce and potatoe.

You may wish to go back and re-read that conversation. I stated that your 4% claim is absurd because humans share more than that with other species that were less similar than the neanderthals -- and guess what? I was right!

Basically, you are trying to disprove a scientific paper. What I did was quote a scientific journal. It is only because you don't understand the specifics of the article, the methods use, that you are foolish enough to think "we share more with other species".

In truth we don't share "more" with other species. Those studies are based on computational models that assume there is a level of sharing relative to the assumed truth of phylogenetic trees.

The study I quoted does not base DNA match against phylogeny but tested DNA in the same way your favourite character from CSI miami tests blood and semen samples. So if on the show the match is 50% do you jump out of your chair and say: "HAaa that is soo wrong! We share more with other species". You share 50% of genetic material with your siblings ...so what does that mean? That you are more related to a chimpanzee than you are to your brother? Yeah... I guess you are right.

Logic my foot. You are an idiot. I keep telling you that but you still don't believe me...2 months. It's ok.

Well, there goes any chance you had of proving your claim that the DNA of E.Coli has not changed in 1 billion years. Add that to the study I posted showing that they have observed the DNA changes in E.Coli in a laboratory setting, and you have no legs to stand on.

No, the study wasn't about "change in dna in e.coli". It was about E.coli being able to transport citrate across it's membrane for metabolization. There is a difference...you have to know something about protein regulations to have an appreciation for that difference.

Assumptions are not evidence.

And it is assumed that species will diverge and have diverged. But no evidence of it having done so.

Citation needed.

Just pick any evolutionary paper and read it out load:

Molecular Regulation of beta -Lactam Biosynthesis in Filamentous Fungi -- Brakhage 62 (3): 547 -- Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews

^ This is a good read. Try chewing on it.

Once again, you have failed to disprove evolution, only that the timeline for the evolution of antibiotic resistance started earlier than was once thought.

Well now I just pushed it back 500 million years back, instead of 375 million years. Do you know when the first multicellular organism arrived on the scene (according to the evolutionary narrative)?

I'm not doubting that -- I am doubting your assertion that the DNA has not changed in over a billion years. There is a huge difference.

Well you are only trying to fool your self.

DNA changes but the essence of organisms remain the same. Just because DNA changes doesn't mean that the organism changes. Your DNA has changed by 75% from your grandfather...but does that mean you have 3 legs and 4 eyes?

Come on...get real.

This is why I find your rebuttals silly and stupid.

Once again you create a straw man. I look like my father -- so by your logic our DNA is identical? That's preposterous.

LOL

My logic?

Please. Go back to school. Do some grade 9 biology.

I can't believe you just said that LOL

50% similar. Monozygotic twins = 100% similar.

Evolution is not a fast process. It takes multiple generations, not hours.

E.coli grows multiple generations in hours. Every generation of e.coli is 17 minutes to be exact. So how many generations in 8 hours? Multiple?

LOL

I can't believe you are so ignorant.

Antibiotic resistance. The ability to consume citrate. Done. Two convenient examples.

Antibiotic resistance? Like I said...you can't call it a mutation that is beneficial since it has a fitness cost. Take away the antibiotics and the wild type will out compete the resistant type. That means that the resultant mutation is a loss of function mutation...a debilitation.

E.coli are glucose consumers. Even the citrate transporter types still needed glucose in their medium.

X-men is fiction. The genetically inheritable traits caused by mutation is a stable of modern biology.

Green eyes are a recessive trait. Do you know what that means? It means they are a loss-of-function mutation. You lose the ability to produce pigmentation. Which is why if you cross a green eyed individual with a dark eyed one, you will get dark eyed babies, because the function would be restored from the one set chromosomes that has it.

Repeat after me - Acquired traits are not heritable.

Yes, X-men is fiction and so is the theory of evolution = Pure fiction.

If you insist on making lies about what I actually say, I am going to insist on citations. If you are going to claim I am arguing *against* evolution, I am going to need more than your word on that.

Well you have and I already explained it to you... even if I cite it for you ...it seems you are not are able to comprehend your own folly.

I indeed say so -- and then follow it up with case after case of me correcting you.

What case? Like how I keep teaching you what DNA is?

Please stop making up outright lies, and then claiming them as quotes from me. I am not going to refute your strawman, as I never stated that.

Please read your post. It is only one page behind ...you said: "change in DNA drives evolution"

If I quote it to you...will you eat your hat?

Your definition has been that 'a species is a group of creatures capable of mating' and have repeatedly stated that. Only when I pressed did you change it append 'and give birth to viable offspring' -- and you still have yet to even address fertility, other than the articles that disprove your own definition.

Why don't you quote me where I said that?

Nice pep-talk you give yourself at the end of your posts. Don't worry, we will make sure we go slow enough for you to keep up.

It's ok old fart. You made some pretty embarrassing arguments. I wish for a change to debate this theory with someone who actually knows what words like asexual reproduction, DNA and evolution actually mean. Instead of some X-men/CSI watching buzzoos gather from the mass media and push forth as their own guess work.

[ozymandias]

Tsk tsk tsk...




Stressor eh?

How about the fact that Streptomyces (a genus of Actinobacteria) are producers of 2/3rds of antibiotics used medicinely. Streptomyces, according to evolutionary scientists, have existed for 500 million years. What stressor was there 500 million years for streptomyces (550 species) to produce antibiotic "resistance" at a time when there weren't any pharmacies?

Are you seriously asking why a bacteria might produce a chemical that kills the competition? And you claim to have a biology degree?

I

Sure I did. I agreed with you that the definition of species used by biologists is wrong...because you think so. Sure buddy... whatever you say

Please stop lying. I never said the definition used by scientists is wrong, nor did I expect you to take my word for it. I provided specific cases where *YOUR* definition was wrong.

have fun proving 'ever'.

Not my role. You are claiming to disprove evolution, and your evidence is that antibiotic resistant bacteria has never evolved. That's your claim to prove, not mine to disprove.

Gee... the fact that bacteria was producing antibiotics before there were even fungus around...gee now you didn't know that now...did you? Do you know what they suppose? Horizontal Gene Transfer. Do you know what that means? I'll give you a hint - it doesn't mean evolution LOL

And you pretend to have a biology degree, and don't even understand the basic concepts of evolution. Sad, really. Horizontal gene transfer is one possible method of evolution. Might want to read up on evolution some more.

Of course they are not. They cannot produce offsprings that can mate with each other. Get it?
(2 more months and you will...some people are slow learners)

Indeed, it only took you 3 weeks to admit that the fertility of the offspring matters. Now we just need to get you to address asexuality.

Define species.

The stipulations are that you ask politely. That means you cannot be insulting or deliberately offensive in the post.

Easy of explaining it to a dimwit like you. You still don't get it ... maybe I should draw figures next time.

Funny, I'm not the one claiming that every single bacteria is it's own species, because I am not using a definition requires sexual contact to define a species. Heck, according to your definition, every man on earth is a separate species, as they cannot interbreed and have fertile children.

viable = fertile.

vi·a·ble/ˈvīəbəl/

Adjective:

• Capable of working successfully; feasible: "the proposed investment was economically viable".
• (of a seed or spore) Able to germinate.

In the context of offspring, the term means the fetus will survive to birth. A non-viable offspring results in a stillborn.

That doesn't even mention the fact that adding 'viability' to your definition is a recent change, as a result of my repeatedly correcting you.

Able to reproduce. Have generation after generation of offsprings. Gee...I guess I should have drawn figures and tables to make you understand.

No, I fully understand what you are saying -- and it is simply wrong. I understand your definition better than you do, clearly.

Asexual creatures produce clones. Clones are genetically identical so obviously they are of the same species. Asexually reproducing organisms can easily be identified as a species... a definition is not even needed!

Unfortunately you are wrong on basic facts here. Mutations can occur rendering the child not 100% like the parent. You are also ignoring the fact that your definition explicitly states that sexual reproduction is required to be a species. Your own definition is flawed -- and you are now admitting that.

They can be known simply by their characteristics and traits.

BINGO! A species cannot be defined solely on sexual reproduction. You need to include other things into your definition to include asexual beings.

So if you have a strain of e.coli that cannot metabolize citrate, and you have a strain that *can*, you are suddenly talking about 2 separate strains.

The definition is sound. You think asexually reproducing organisms don't fit the definition of species simply because they are not sexually reproducing...

No, they don't fit *YOUR* definition.

but the reason the word species has to be defined is to distinguish between sexually reproducing organisms.

False. There are thousands of species of asexual bacteria.

Those organisms that cannot inter breed are of different species.

So, again, by your definition, every single e.coli organism is it's own species.

Simple Logic. You lack it. Think about it some more. Let it seep into through your skull... 2 months. Trust me. Scimitar is the same as you. Can't teach an old dog new tricks ...etc etc.

Doesn't mean I won't try to teach you some basic tricks.

Good! Because I don't ... you old fart.




How are we "more" evolved?

You call your self a logician?

We are not more evolved. If anything it could be argue that we are less evolved. If you study the role of humans and our ability to "cope" with our environment we are a total disaster. We behave more like a virus the way we colonize the earth and deplete resources and produce toxic waste that corrodes the environment.

Cockroaches are better evolved than we are.

And why would we be "better" evolved to live in water than fish? That is a totally asinine statement.

Funny -- I just restated your own claim -- that any subsequent evolution needs to be most fit for every environment. You are the one that claimed that antibiotic resistant bacteria could not be evolution, as it was less suited for an antibiotic-free environment than the strain it evolved from.

The more you try to free lance on biology and ecology the more ridiculous your arguments become.

I suppose you are assuming that our predecessors are fish? LOL





WTF are you talking about dude?

How about the bacteria in your intestines?

And what the flip is a "antibiotic rich enviornment"? A hospital? You crazy? A hospital is one of the most unsanitary places in the city. You know why? Because unlike restaurants, they don't get checked for sanitation.

Several things are wrong here. Maybe there are no sanitation codes in some third world countries, but in most modern societies have very strict sanitation codes for healthcare facilities.

It is also interesting that you misunderstood a term used in basic biology, considering you claim to be a biology major. An environment rich in antibiotics would be a growth media that contains high level of antibiotics. This would not be a hospital, but rather a test tube that has been treated with that antibiotic, or even a living creature treated with high levels of antibiotics. We are talking the bacteria's environment -- not yours.

So I don't know what it is you smoke when you come with such silly rebuttals. Not all bacteria have resistance, so every time you do get sore throat, you don't need to take antibiotics either.

This is gibberish. You are right, not all bacteria have resistance, that is why antibiotics work. The reason you don't need antibiotics every time you are sick is that the human body has antigens and an immune system that can handle bacteria on its own -- with or without the assistance of antibiotics, in most cases.

[quote

The reason why all this hype persists is because most physicians know that antibiotics are over prescribed.

[/quote]

Which provides more chances for more strains of antibiotic resistance bacteria to evolve.

The beef you eat is already pumped with enough antibiotics for you...oh even your lettuce and potatoe.




Basically, you are trying to disprove a scientific paper. What I did was quote a scientific journal. It is only because you don't understand the specifics of the article, the methods use, that you are foolish enough to think "we share more with other species".

Actually, you did not even read the whole article, as that same article stated that my number was more accurate. Your number was being misused by you.

In truth we don't share "more" with other species. Those studies are based on computational models that assume there is a level of sharing relative to the assumed truth of phylogenetic trees.

The study I quoted does not base DNA match against phylogeny but tested DNA in the same way your favourite character from CSI miami tests blood and semen samples. So if on the show the match is 50% do you jump out of your chair and say: "HAaa that is soo wrong! We share more with other species". You share 50% of genetic material with your siblings ...so what does that mean? That you are more related to a chimpanzee than you are to your brother? Yeah... I guess you are right.

Exactly. Your original statement was misleading and incorrect. It was only after I corrected you that you stopped saying 'only 4%'.

Logic my foot. You are an idiot. I keep telling you that but you still don't believe me...2 months. It's ok.





No, the study wasn't about "change in dna in e.coli". It was about E.coli being able to transport citrate across it's membrane for metabolization. There is a difference...you have to know something about protein regulations to have an appreciation for that difference.

Please stay on topic. This quote was not about that study, it was about your claim that E.Coli DNA has not changed in 1 billion years. I mentioned that study, because in that study, they have observed DNA changes in E.Coli, making your claim all the harder to prove.

And it is assumed that species will diverge and have diverged. But no evidence of it having done so.

Well, other than the fact that it has been observed, and the fossil records. And the experiments that caused that. Except for, you know, modern biology.

Just pick any evolutionary paper and read it out load:

Molecular Regulation of beta -Lactam Biosynthesis in Filamentous Fungi -- Brakhage 62 (3): 547 -- Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews

^ This is a good read. Try chewing on it.

Nothing in that paper suggests that there has been no DNA changes in 'several billion years'. It simply states several specific examples of speciation that occurred in various time frames. You are aware that not every change in DNA results in speciation, right? I should not have to ask someone that claims to be a biology major such a basic question.

Well now I just pushed it back 500 million years back, instead of 375 million years. Do you know when the first multicellular organism arrived on the scene (according to the evolutionary narrative)?

You pushed back the evolution of one specific trait to 30,000 years. Huge difference.

Well you are only trying to fool your self.

DNA changes but the essence of organisms remain the same. Just because DNA changes doesn't mean that the organism changes. Your DNA has changed by 75% from your grandfather...but does that mean you have 3 legs and 4 eyes?

No, but it means that your claim that e.coli has not had a DNA change in 1 billion years is false.

Come on...get real.

This is why I find your rebuttals silly and stupid.

Indeed -- because you fail to understand them. I can see why you are confused.

LOL

My logic?

Please. Go back to school. Do some grade 9 biology.

I can't believe you just said that LOL

50% similar. Monozygotic twins = 100% similar.

You are the one claiming that e.coli DNA has not changed, based on the appearance of the adult cells found in fossil records.

E.coli grows multiple generations in hours. Every generation of e.coli is 17 minutes to be exact. So how many generations in 8 hours? Multiple?

But you stated "Every single nucleotide in a bacteria gets changed within 8 hours!" clearly you are talking about a single bacteria over 8 hours, not multiple generations. You are losing track of your own arguments here.

LOL

I can't believe you are so ignorant.

I can't believe you just tried to pull that. You are making a statement about a single bacteria, and when I called you on it, you pretended to be discussing multiple generations.

Antibiotic resistance? Like I said...you can't call it a mutation that is beneficial since it has a fitness cost. Take away the antibiotics and the wild type will out compete the resistant type.

There you go again, claiming that evolution has to result in a better fitness for all environments. This is patently false.

That means that the resultant mutation is a loss of function mutation...a debilitation.

Except for that whole 'it can survive in an environment the predecessor cannot. Seems like a hell of a debilitation. I mean, it's terribly debilitating to be able to live in a new environment with no competition.

E.coli are glucose consumers. Even the citrate transporter types still needed glucose in their medium.

But they have distinctly different traits than there predecessor. You asked for examples of beneficial mutations -- and I gave you two -- the ability to spread into a new environment previously off limits, and the ability to consume an additional, new, food source.

Green eyes are a recessive trait. Do you know what that means? It means they are a loss-of-function mutation.

*sigh*

You lose the ability to produce pigmentation. Which is why if you cross a green eyed individual with a dark eyed one, you will get dark eyed babies, because the function would be restored from the one set chromosomes that has it.

Repeat after me - Acquired traits are not heritable.

Seems strange a self proclaimed biology major would get this fact wrong. Acquired traits are physiological traits -- not genetic. Having a scar from a surgery is an acquired trait. Having green eyes is not. Acquired traits are not part of evolution. You are basically claiming to have disproved evolution because my grandfather lost an arm in a war -- but I was born with two arms. It's unrelated.

Yes, X-men is fiction and so is the theory of evolution = Pure fiction.

Citation needed. Not about X-Men, but your claims about evolution.

Well you have and I already explained it to you... even if I cite it for you ...it seems you are not are able to comprehend your own folly.

You have yet to cite a single, in context, case of me arguing against evolution.

What case? Like how I keep teaching you what DNA is?

Feel free to start teaching at some point. Of course, you will need to learn what it is, yourself, before you can try to do that.

Please read your post. It is only one page behind ...you said: "change in DNA drives evolution"

If I quote it to you...will you eat your hat?

Will do. Show me where I stated ""change in DNA drives evolution...DNA changes from generation to generation but species all have remained the same"

Why don't you quote me where I said that?

To reiterate for the nth time...

As long as they can mate...they are of the same species.

It's ok old fart. You made some pretty embarrassing arguments.

[/quote]

No need to be embarrassed. The important thing is that you are learning now.

I wish for a change to debate this theory with someone who actually knows what words like asexual reproduction, DNA and evolution actually mean.

I understand that sentiment. Perhaps we should focus your education on those words for the near future -- start at the basics, as it were.

Instead of some X-men/CSI watching buzzoos gather from the mass media and push forth as their own guess work.

Yeah, your CSI and X-Men claims do get a little old.

[Alchemist]

Are you seriously asking why a bacteria might produce a chemical that kills the competition? And you claim to have a biology degree?

Sir, we are talking about a anti biotics ...it is just as harmful to it is as it is to the competition.

Please stop lying. I never said the definition used by scientists is wrong, nor did I expect you to take my word for it. I provided specific cases where *YOUR* definition was wrong

.


You said it was "sloppy and flawed" like mines...your pants are on fire.

Not my role. You are claiming to disprove evolution, and your evidence is that antibiotic resistant bacteria has never evolved. That's your claim to prove, not mine to disprove.

It hasn't been proven that it has evolved so it can't be assume that it has or hasn't.

That is the point.Suffice it to say that it can't be proved or disproved since we don't have a time machine.

And you pretend to have a biology degree, and don't even understand the basic concepts of evolution. Sad, really. Horizontal gene transfer is one possible method of evolution. Might want to read up on evolution some more.

Horizontal gene transfer has nothing to do with the theory of evolution my dear.

The theory of evolution is based on the accumulation of gradual changes, which is why the phylogentic trees and clads are based on "branches"...one organism leading into another. Horizontal gene transfer does away with the phylogenetic tree. And if the tree is uprooted, then the idea that one organism evolved from another organism holds very little water. Without the phylogenetic tree such studies that assume that chimpanzees and humans share 95 or 98 % DNA is just that ...assumptive and without bases since it cannot be assumed that the DNA was inherited from the same clad. That means that it cannot be assumed that a human is more related to a chimpanzee than it is to a chicken or a rat.

This is very basic. You don't even need to know the details of evolution...if you only use your brain you could rational it out. Every 9th grader can tell you that evolution is essentially vertical, from lower to higher species.

And besides...horizontal gene transfer between unicellular and multicellular organisms is not even proven! It is only assumed as a mechanism. Reason being that they find genes in organisms across different clads! Evolutionary biologists are completely baffled by this phenomena! It makes the theory weaker!

You see... you keep making silly arguments out of your own ignorance. It's a shame that I am the only one in this forum who understands biology... so that lay people like you could make stupid remarks like this and get away with it.

Here is citation:

http://afrsweb.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/ad_hoc/36400500Publications/HCK/horizon.pdf

Although evidence for horizontal gene transfer (HGT) in eukaryotes
remains largely anecdotal, literature on HGT in fungi suggests that it may have been
more important in the evolution of fungi than in other eukaryotes. Still, HGT in fungi
has not been widely accepted because the mechanisms by which it may occur are
unknown, because it is usually not directly observed but rather implied as an outcome,
and because there are often equally plausible alternative explanations. Despite these
reservations, HGT has been justifiably invoked for a variety of sequences including
plasmids, introns, transposons, genes, gene clusters, and even whole chromosomes. In
some instances HGT has also been confirmed under experimental conditions. It is this
ability to address the phenomenon in an experimental setting that makes fungi well
suited as model systems in which to study the mechanisms and consequences of HGT
in eukaryotic organisms.

Indeed, it only took you 3 weeks to admit that the fertility of the offspring matters. Now we just need to get you to address asexuality.

I have always said that it matters. I can show you quotes from before you even joined the forum that I have been saying it matters.

Asexuality doesn't need to be addressed. It is irrelevant to the concept of species. I already explained this but it seems you couldn't comprehend the explanation. A shame.

The stipulations are that you ask politely. That means you cannot be insulting or deliberately offensive in the post.

You are a moron.

Funny, I'm not the one claiming that every single bacteria is it's own species, because I am not using a definition requires sexual contact to define a species. Heck, according to your definition, every man on earth is a separate species, as they cannot interbreed and have fertile children.

Again ...an asinine rebuttal that doesn't even warrant a response.

You play with that strawman until you feel satisfied buddy.

[

B]vi·a·ble/ˈvīəbəl/[/B]

Adjective:

• Capable of working successfully; feasible: "the proposed investment was economically viable".
• (of a seed or spore) Able to germinate.

In the context of offspring, the term means the fetus will survive to birth. A non-viable offspring results in a stillborn.

That doesn't even mention the fact that adding 'viability' to your definition is a recent change, as a result of my repeatedly correcting you.

Strawman arguments... I defined species properly... you only hark on it because it makes you feel good. I have defined species properly before you even joined the forum. I repeated it correctly...but you just want to take my quote out of context and be a douchebag about it because I have exposed you as an ignoramus on the subject of evolution.

No, I fully understand what you are saying -- and it is simply wrong. I understand your definition better than you do, clearly.

So you disagree with the scientific definition of species. So be it.

Unfortunately you are wrong on basic facts here. Mutations can occur rendering the child not 100% like the parent. You are also ignoring the fact that your definition explicitly states that sexual reproduction is required to be a species. Your own definition is flawed -- and you are now admitting that.

Child?
They are referred to as daughter cells. Not children.

The species is the same...they express the same genes and the same proteins and have the same characteristics.

Maybe you should check the definition of clone.

Asexual reproduction compels genomes to be inherited as indivisible blocks so that once the least mutated genomes in an asexual population begin to carry at least one deleterious mutation, no genomes with fewer such mutations can be expected to be found in future generations (except as a result of back mutation). This results in an eventual accumulation of mutations known as genetic load. In theory, the genetic load carried by asexual populations eventually becomes so great that the population goes extinct.[3]

Muller's ratchet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BINGO! A species cannot be defined solely on sexual reproduction. You need to include other things into your definition to include asexual beings.

So if you have a strain of e.coli that cannot metabolize citrate, and you have a strain that *can*, you are suddenly talking about 2 separate strains.

You are grasping for straws my simpleton friend.

Let me settle this for you once and for all by quoting you a biology text book...since you keep free styling this debate by your whims.

Identification of Bacteria

Bacterial species

Similar individuals:

A bacterial species is "a population of cells with similar characteristics." (p. 257, Tortora et al., 1995)

Note that this definition is very different from how plant and animal species are often defined, which usually involves something to do with sex.
Resemble fossil species:
Bacterial species resemble the way fossil species are distinguished (i.e., phylogenetic species concept).
Normally plant and especially animal species are defined as populations of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding individuals that don't breed with individuals of other, like-defined populations.
For fossils, on the other hand, it cannot be determined who interbred, or could have, with whom. Consequently, fossil species are defined only in terms of character resemblance, just as are bacteria.

...

Strain

A strain is a subset of a bacterial species differing from other bacteria of the same species by some minor but identifiable difference.
A strain is "a population of organisms that descends from a single organism or pure culture isolate. Strains within a species may differ slightly from one another in many ways." (p. 392, Prescott et al., 1996)
Strains are often created in the laboratory by mutagenizing existing strains or wild-type examples of bacterial species.
The term strain is also applicable to eucaryotic microorganisms , as well as to viruses .

citrate transporters are a different strain of bacteria.

Get it now?

Can I hear a "Bingo"?

Please stop making a fool out of your self and just admit that you don't know what it is you are talking about.

No, they don't fit *YOUR* definition.

Read above ... definition used by scientists...found in text books. You are being an ass and not defining species your self.

False. There are thousands of species of asexual bacteria.

False! There are billions of species of asexually reproducing bacteria. Plants reproduce asexually too. But if you click on the link above you will know how the distinctions are made for asexually reproducing organisms (characteristics).

If you define cats simply by their characteristics then they can easily be confused as a family of Felidae which has 36 species ...what makes them each a unique is that they can't interbreed.

So, again, by your definition, every single e.coli organism is it's own species

.

Again you are making a ridiculous argument.

As I said, species of bacteria are differentiated by the way they become known of. These are "MICRO organisms". A totally different kingdom of living things.

Doesn't mean I won't try to teach you some basic tricks.

Yeah, like how to make me beg you to give me a definition of species? Or how to make whimsical rebuttals to cover your ignorance of the sciences? No thanks.

Funny -- I just restated your own claim -- that any subsequent evolution needs to be most fit for every environment. You are the one that claimed that antibiotic resistant bacteria could not be evolution, as it was less suited for an antibiotic-free environment than the strain it evolved from.

Funny, you are making another strawman argument. Have fun with that one too.

I said that anti biotic resistance has always been around. I never said anything about it's environment nor did I ever say anything of a "strain it evolved from".

Several things are wrong here. Maybe there are no sanitation codes in some third world countries, but in most modern societies have very strict sanitation codes for healthcare facilities.

No the in the US or Canada. Just google it.

Besides...this is a foolish tangent to pursue. This issue has no relevance to our discussion. Stop derailing the argument.

It is also interesting that you misunderstood a term used in basic biology, considering you claim to be a biology major. An environment rich in antibiotics would be a growth media that contains high level of antibiotics. This would not be a hospital, but rather a test tube that has been treated with that antibiotic, or even a living creature treated with high levels of antibiotics. We are talking the bacteria's environment -- not yours.

Test tube full of antibiotics = Artificial Selection.

Did you forget the "Natural" in "natural selection"?

Still if you could cite a paper where a new species was discovered in a test tube full of antibiotics..that would help your case.

This is gibberish. You are right, not all bacteria have resistance, that is why antibiotics work. The reason you don't need antibiotics every time you are sick is that the human body has antigens and an immune system that can handle bacteria on its own -- with or without the assistance of antibiotics, in most cases.

"Human body has antigens"

LOL

*Face palm*

This is the kind of layman idiocy that I have to deal with?

The antigens are on the surface of bacteria....bacteria have antigens. We have ANTIBODIES....Anti bodies attach to antigens....white blood cells attach to antibodies and phagocytose bacteria.

Which provides more chances for more strains of antibiotic resistance bacteria to evolve.

now you are presuming that strains are different species...*face palm*

Actually, you did not even read the whole article, as that same article stated that my number was more accurate. Your number was being misused by you.

Between 1% and 4% of the DNA in modern Europeans, Asians and those as far afield as Papua New Guinea, was inherited from Neanderthals.
Neanderthals live on in DNA of humans | Science | The Guardian

Just stfu...

Exactly. Your original statement was misleading and incorrect. It was only after I corrected you that you stopped saying 'only 4%'.

Whatever...man...ur just ..de...lu...sion...al.

Trying too hard to score some points but keep failing.

Please stay on topic. This quote was not about that study, it was about your claim that E.Coli DNA has not changed in 1 billion years. I mentioned that study, because in that study, they have observed DNA changes in E.Coli, making your claim all the harder to prove.

DNA changes ...but that doesn't mean evolution happens. DNA changes all the time ..do you know what transposons are? "Jumping genes"...they move around the genome...your DNA changes...does that mean you are evolving?

You keep saying it like you found the holy grail.

Well, other than the fact that it has been observed, and the fossil records. And the experiments that caused that. Except for, you know, modern biology.

Fossil record doesn't show "divergence" ...the missing links are still missing...so they had to modify the theory and come up with "punctuated equilibrium" which basically means ...one day a chicken is born in a lizard's egg. There is no record of that happening.

Nothing in that paper suggests that there has been no DNA changes in 'several billion years'. It simply states several specific examples of speciation that occurred in various time frames. .

And all the species that I named have been the same for over 3 billion years in that paper.

You are aware that not every change in DNA results in speciation, right? I should not have to ask someone that claims to be a biology major such a basic question

No change in DNA results in speciation!
No evidence of it happening exists! Not in the lab not in the fossil records.

You pushed back the evolution of one specific trait to 30,000 years. Huge difference.

The paper I quoted was based on an article that had found intact bacteria DNA dating 30,000 years. But based on evolutionary biologists claim...the date can be pushed back 500 million years back.

Every thing I state is based on proven scientific facts...or even opinions. I can back every claim

No, but it means that your claim that e.coli has not had a DNA change in 1 billion years is false.

Not necessarily. It may be true. If it is true for other bacteria it maybe true for E.coli...it is only assumed to be recent based on the larger evolutionary narrative.

Indeed -- because you fail to understand them. I can see why you are confused.

Yes I fail to understand your child like rebuttals. You are a lot like faye. Old and out dated. You make a quick dash to google to update your self and then fail some. No wonder your arguments are so confusing...because they are your own fabrication.

You are the one claiming that e.coli DNA has not changed, based on the appearance of the adult cells found in fossil records.

Adult cells...lol....bacteria child ...
You seem to view bacteria as people.

But you stated "Every single nucleotide in a bacteria gets changed within 8 hours!" clearly you are talking about a single bacteria over 8 hours, not multiple generations. You are losing track of your own arguments here.

Bacteria is plural ... bacterium is singular.

LOL

I can't believe you just tried to pull that. You are making a statement about a single bacteria, and when I called you on it, you pretended to be discussing multiple generations.

BActeria = plural


Bacterium = singular.


PLease stop it ...you are killing me of laughter here LOL LOL

There you go again, claiming that evolution has to result in a better fitness for all environments. This is patently false.

err... strawman.

either that .. or you are confusing stressor for environment.

yep...like arguing with a 5th grader.

Except for that whole 'it can survive in an environment the predecessor cannot. Seems like a hell of a debilitation. I mean, it's terribly debilitating to be able to live in a new environment with no competition.

Both bacterial strains could survive in the medium since glucose was only constrained. Citrate metabolization was not as efficient as glucose metabolization.

But they have distinctly different traits than there predecessor. You asked for examples of beneficial mutations -- and I gave you two -- the ability to spread into a new environment previously off limits, and the ability to consume an additional, new, food source.

The enviornment wasn't "new"...it was the same for both since glucose was available.

"New food source"?

Do you know what the kreb cycle is?




Let's play pin the tail on the donkey...find citrate on the chart ^


Basically, the mutation happened at an operon site that regulated genes involved with citrate transport..so regardless of the oxidative state the genes were expressed. Another thing that could have happened is that a transporter that transported some other molecule, like tartrate, mutated so that it couldn't distinguish between citrate and tartrate.

Evolution is suppose to account for the creation of NEW information. But the experiment went on to prove that mutations only destroy information.

*sigh*

deep breaths

Seems strange a self proclaimed biology major would get this fact wrong. Acquired traits are physiological traits -- not genetic. Having a scar from a surgery is an acquired trait. Having green eyes is not. Acquired traits are not part of evolution. You are basically claiming to have disproved evolution because my grandfather lost an arm in a war -- but I was born with two arms. It's unrelated.

this is darwin saying that because your granpa lost an arm in the war, the things he went through, would be a vairation that would be selected for:

Selection acts only by the accumulation of slight or greater variations, caused by external conditions, or by the mere fact that in generation the child is not absolutely similar to its parent.
…

Now take the case of a country undergoing some change. This will tend to cause some of its inhabitants to vary slightly—not but that I believe most beings vary at all times enough for selection to act on them. Some of its inhabitants will be exterminated; and the remainder will be exposed to the mutual action of a different set of inhabitants, which I believe to be far more important to the life of each being than mere climate.

Again he says in Origins:

I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature—had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation. Some authors believe it to be as much the function of the reproductive system to produce individual differences, or very slight deviations of structure, as to make the child like its parents. But the much greater variability, as well as the greater frequency of monstrosities, under domestication or cultivation, than under nature, leads me to believe that deviations of structure are in some way due to the nature of the conditions of life, to which the parents and their more remote ancestors have been exposed during several generations. I have remarked in the first chapter—but a long catalogue of facts which cannot be here given would be necessary to show the truth of the remark—that the reproductive system is eminently susceptible to changes in the conditions of life; and to this system being functionally disturbed in the parents, I chiefly attribute the varying or plastic condition of the offspring. The male and female sexual elements seem to be affected before that union takes place which is to form a new being. In the case of “sporting” plants, the bud, which in its earliest condition does not apparently differ essentially from an ovule, is alone affected. But why, because the reproductive system is disturbed, this or that part should vary more or less, we are profoundly ignorant. Nevertheless, we can here and there dimly catch a faint ray of light, and we may feel sure that there must be some cause for each deviation of structure, however slight.

It is difficult to understand how anyone well acquainted with Darwin’s works can come to any other conclusion than that he firmly believed in Lamarck’s principle of the transmission of characters acquired by use.

Good job mate. You just disagreed with Darwin

Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome
And neo darwinism ^

Citation needed. Not about X-Men, but your claims about evolution.

See Above.

You have yet to cite a single, in context, case of me arguing against evolution.

^ I just did ...but you will go into denial again because it is easy when you don't understand what it is you are arguing for.

Feel free to start teaching at some point. Of course, you will need to learn what it is, yourself, before you can try to do that.

Bacteria = singular, bacterium = plural. Antigen = foreign to the body. Antibody= attaches to antigen.

Will do. Show me where I stated ""change in DNA drives evolution...DNA changes from generation to generation but species all have remained the same"

Evolution is driven by changes in DNA

Mutations happen due to ERROR during replication of DNA.

No need to be embarrassed. The important thing is that you are learning now

Yes. I am learning. I never stopped learning. It's too bad you never started to learn and still can't.

I understand that sentiment. Perhaps we should focus your education on those words for the near future -- start at the basics, as it were.




Yeah, your CSI and X-Men claims do get a little old.

Whatever ..fool.

[Soldat_Amir]

Educational purposes only. No intention to offend.

[ScimitarXEdge]

[Alchemist]

1) Not believing in Creation = Kufr

2) "11 new species of bacteria" = debunked.... lucky for you torkhan saved you the embarrassment. Still it looks like your itching, so when you take your fingers out of your hole then I ll show you what's up again...and again...and again.

You failure.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Tryng to reinvent the meaning of "new species" is not a "debunking" it's a way of tring to make your incompetence seem like victories


you're hallucinating and deluding yourself. The articles were clear, otherwise PROVE, not speculate that "New Species" doesn't actually mean "New Species".