RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria

RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

DanJames -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 9:59:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Bob: Wow, look at these symbols. I wonder how they got there? Frank: Intelligent causation, obviously. Bob: I know that Frank, I mean how did they write those symbols and what does it mean? Frank: Intelligent causation, Bob. Weren't you listening? Bob: Ok, let me simplify this for you. Why is that squiggly line next to the buffalo? Frank: Intelligent causation, Bob. I don't know what else to say. Joe: Hey Bob, how you doin'? Bob: Well, I have a problem here. I am trying to figure out what these symbols mean and how they got there. Joe: Well, I scrape off some of that pigment and run it in my mass spec. It appears to be ochre, and if it is the author of these symbols probably got the material from that river down there. The silt along the river is loaded with this stuff. I could also compare these symbols to other sites to see if we can't find their meaning. Bob: Frank, you're fired. Joe, you need a job? Are you saying that just because we haven't asked the question of how the designer did his creative work that it is impossible for Intelligence to be the answer?

drj11 -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 10:04:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames Are you saying that just because we haven't asked the question of how the designer did his creative work that it is impossible for Intelligence to be the answer? That question is totally useless in ID land, given that the theory assumes designer had to employ supernatural means to guide the formation of life.

DanJames -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 10:16:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames Are you saying that just because we haven't asked the question of how the designer did his creative work that it is impossible for Intelligence to be the answer? That question is totally useless in ID land, given that the theory assumes designer had to employ supernatural means to guide the formation of life. No, no, no, don't walk away so quickly, drj. The question was: just because we have not yet asked the question, does that mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE for intelligence to have been the agent of the creation and diversity of living organisms? This is a valid question because so often ID is called "not science" because it leaves us with "nothing to teach". As if our methods of scientific inquiry cause certain scenarios to be impossible.

drj11 -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 10:24:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames Are you saying that just because we haven't asked the question of how the designer did his creative work that it is impossible for Intelligence to be the answer? That question is totally useless in ID land, given that the theory assumes designer had to employ supernatural means to guide the formation of life. No, no, no, don't walk away so quickly, drj. The question was: just because we have not yet asked the question, does that mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE for intelligence to have been the agent of the creation and diversity of living organisms? Well why haven't they asked? If we assume the 'designer' is nature, we have already certainly asked that question countless times and are looking for the answer. If ID is this great theory that's going to provide all kinds of avenues of research, why haven't they asked the most basic, obvious question? We all know even with evolution and abiogenesis, life could have still been the product of intelligence (ie Diety)... just that they did it through natural means.

DanJames -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 10:28:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames Are you saying that just because we haven't asked the question of how the designer did his creative work that it is impossible for Intelligence to be the answer? That question is totally useless in ID land, given that the theory assumes designer had to employ supernatural means to guide the formation of life. No, no, no, don't walk away so quickly, drj. The question was: just because we have not yet asked the question, does that mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE for intelligence to have been the agent of the creation and diversity of living organisms? Well why haven't they asked? If we assume the 'designer' is nature, we have already certainly asked that question countless times and are looking for the answer. If ID is this great theory that's going to provide all kinds of avenues of research, why haven't they asked the most basic, obvious question? We all know even with evolution and abiogenesis, life could have still been the product of intelligence (ie Diety)... just that they did it through natural means. Oh, so it's only impossible for their to be a designer if he used means other than the supernatural. So we KNOW that there can be a designer, but because we might not be able to figure out what the supernatural agents of creation might have been, it is therefore impossible for said designer to have used supernatural agents. Am I getting this right?

drmark -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 10:29:08 AM)
quote: We all know even with evolution and abiogenesis, life could have still been the product of intelligence (ie Diety)... just that they did it through natural means. Well folks, here it is, the $64K question. Is Intelligent Design compatible with "natural means"? Maybe this issue needs a whole new thread, doncha think?

DanJames -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 10:30:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: We all know even with evolution and abiogenesis, life could have still been the product of intelligence (ie Diety)... just that they did it through natural means. Well folks, here it is, the $64K question. Is Intelligent Design compatible with "natural means"? Maybe this issue needs a whole new thread, doncha think? If we had a magic moderator button, maybe they could just cut the last few posts out and paste them in a new thread. That way the conversation wouldn't be broken. Start looking for a magic moderator button.

drj11 -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 10:36:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: We all know even with evolution and abiogenesis, life could have still been the product of intelligence (ie Diety)... just that they did it through natural means. Well folks, here it is, the $64K question. Is Intelligent Design compatible with "natural means"? Maybe this issue needs a whole new thread, doncha think? This would be the position of theistic evolutionists all around the world. But ID as it stands is not compatible with natural means, its just the opposite. Natural means in ID land are insufficient, so we have to assume supernatural.

drj11 -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 10:37:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames Are you saying that just because we haven't asked the question of how the designer did his creative work that it is impossible for Intelligence to be the answer? That question is totally useless in ID land, given that the theory assumes designer had to employ supernatural means to guide the formation of life. No, no, no, don't walk away so quickly, drj. The question was: just because we have not yet asked the question, does that mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE for intelligence to have been the agent of the creation and diversity of living organisms? Well why haven't they asked? If we assume the 'designer' is nature, we have already certainly asked that question countless times and are looking for the answer. If ID is this great theory that's going to provide all kinds of avenues of research, why haven't they asked the most basic, obvious question? We all know even with evolution and abiogenesis, life could have still been the product of intelligence (ie Diety)... just that they did it through natural means. Oh, so it's only impossible for their to be a designer if he used means other than the supernatural. So we KNOW that there can be a designer, but because we might not be able to figure out what the supernatural agents of creation might have been, it is therefore impossible for said designer to have used supernatural agents. Am I getting this right? Yes, anything else is called superstition.

DanJames -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 10:48:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames Are you saying that just because we haven't asked the question of how the designer did his creative work that it is impossible for Intelligence to be the answer? That question is totally useless in ID land, given that the theory assumes designer had to employ supernatural means to guide the formation of life. No, no, no, don't walk away so quickly, drj. The question was: just because we have not yet asked the question, does that mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE for intelligence to have been the agent of the creation and diversity of living organisms? Well why haven't they asked? If we assume the 'designer' is nature, we have already certainly asked that question countless times and are looking for the answer. If ID is this great theory that's going to provide all kinds of avenues of research, why haven't they asked the most basic, obvious question? We all know even with evolution and abiogenesis, life could have still been the product of intelligence (ie Diety)... just that they did it through natural means. Oh, so it's only impossible for their to be a designer if he used means other than the supernatural. So we KNOW that there can be a designer, but because we might not be able to figure out what the supernatural agents of creation might have been, it is therefore impossible for said designer to have used supernatural agents. Am I getting this right? Yes, anything else is called superstition. I would call it open-mindedness. Allowing the evidence to speak for itself without calling upon paradigms to define what can and cannot be a scenario that already happened in the past. A future civilization might use the same logic and claim that natural causes created our buildings and automobiles because their scientific method doesn't allow for intelligence. Do we therefore cease to exist?

Method -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 3:16:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: If life were designed the minimum genetic contingent could be different for every design. I am not sure why it would be necessary for that to be the case. Look at any group of designs that humans make. For instance, cars. What is the minimum number of components that any car must have? Gas tank? Nope, some can run on electricity alone. Wheels? Not that either, some could have tracks. Also, there is nothing arbitrary about the design of cars unlike life where codon usage is universal but arbitrary. quote: I didn�t deny they were part of the mechanism; but the mechanism isn�t the cause � it�s the mechanism. The mechanism is the cause. quote: Cute � though it has actually transpired this way: Jack: Wow, look at these symbols. I wonder how they got there?... Method: An instrument of some sort inscribed them there, obviously. Jack: I know that, Method, but I do you suppose an alien intelligence caused these markings to be here? Method: Intelligent Causation is nothing more than a phrase to appease people's religious convictions. It tells us nothing about how they got there. Jack: Well, what does it tell us? Method: Well, it tells us there was a mechanism for inscribing the symbols, an appendage for manipulating the mechanism, and some sort of neural impulses to manipulate the appendage. Jack: But isn�t such a high degree of forethought, intention, and purpose indicative of intelligence? Method: We simply can�t infer the illusory notion of intelligence on the existence of written communication. Jack: True, your posts are proof of that� You will notice that even in your attempt to mock me I supplied more information than any IDist has ever put forth for the mechanism behind ID. For instance, "Well, it tells us there was a mechanism for inscribing the symbols, an appendage for manipulating the mechanism, and some sort of neural impulses to manipulate the appendage." What about the mechanism for inscribing the symbols? One could analyze the depressions produced by the writing implement. A laser and chisel would both leave different evidence and determining the method used can tell us a lot about the technological ability of the writer. The way in which letters are written can tell us a lot about the flexibility of the appendage and a lot about the morphology of writer. Even having neural impulses tells us a lot about their makeup and morphology. Even better yet, what if some ink were blown onto the surface? Such a technique was used by early cave painters. If this were the case then there is a possibility that there is organic material in the paint which can be analyzed to determine the organic makeup of the writer. All of this information is lost if the answer is "intelligent causation". Son: Wow, the Empire State building sure is tall. How did they do that? Dad: Intelligent causation, son. Son: No, I mean how did the stack everything up so high and keep it together. Dad: Like I said, intelligent causation. What aren't you understanding? quote: Bacteria symbolically communicate? This I got to see. Google "quorum sensing".

Method -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 3:19:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames Are you saying that just because we haven't asked the question of how the designer did his creative work that it is impossible for Intelligence to be the answer? I am not saying it is impossible at all. What I am saying is that "Intelligent Causation"' is not an explanation because it doesn't explain anything. It is useless as an explanation. Scientists, first and foremost, are pragmatists. They prefer theories that are useful and productive. This is why they like the theory of evolution. It is very useful in the fields of comparative genomics and phylogenomics. ID is not useful. No one is using it in their research because it can't be used in it's current form. Could ID be useful in the future? It's possible, but it isn't right now.

Agahnim -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 4:29:43 PM)
Jhud, are you going to keep ignoring my point here, or what? I�ve asked you at least three times if you can support your claim that we can know for certain these mutations wouldn�t have been useful, and each time you�ve had nothing to say in response. You can�t think this is off-topic, since your point about how this makes the evolution of flight in bats so improbable is something that you brought up yourself. It�s pretty clear that you would be supporting this point of yours if you were able to, so your continued declining to do so seems to be an indirect admission that it can�t be supported. Now, there are three options here. If the argument you�re using can be supported, then support it and we�ll continue our debate about it. If you know that it can�t be supported, as I suspect you do, then if you�re as open-minded as you claim to be you�ll stop using it, and preferably acknowledge what�s wrong with it. The third option is to keep using the same argument while ignoring what it�s already clear is wrong with it, and show yourself to not care whether the arguments you use are valid or not. I�ll be paying attention to which you choose, and I encourage other people to pay attention to the same thing.

swan42 -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 8:29:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Mutations do not create new information... That is a myth. There are 3 billion base pairs in the genome of humans. A base pair is a GC, CG, AT or TA. Thus, 4 possible values per position in the genome. Roughly, 4^3billion == 8.1 * 10^37 possible combinations of base pairs per human. Written another way, that's 81 followed by 36 zeros. 81000000000000000000000000000000000000. There are roughly 6 billion people alive today and perhaps 100 billion people who have ever lived. (6000000000 today, and 100000000000 who ever lived). That leaves about 80999999999999999999999999990000000000 genetic humans who have never lived. x% of these would not live y% of these would appear to have no change in phenotype z% of these would appear to have new information

Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 10:12:05 PM)
quote: Look at any group of designs that humans make. For instance, cars. What is the minimum number of components that any car must have? Gas tank? Nope, some can run on electricity alone. Wheels? Not that either, some could have tracks. Also, there is nothing arbitrary about the design of cars unlike life where codon usage is universal but arbitrary. First off you completely ignored actual components which would render a car useless and you just arbitrarily start attaching parts that wouldn�t work on any known car. quote: The mechanism is the cause. No, no mechanism is ever the cause. quote: You will notice that even in your attempt to mock me I supplied more information than any IDist has ever put forth for the mechanism behind ID. For instance, "Well, it tells us there was a mechanism for inscribing the symbols, an appendage for manipulating the mechanism, and some sort of neural impulses to manipulate the appendage." You will notice in every attempt to be a playwright, you miss the point. You would miss the discovery of alien intelligent life because you would claim that symbolic writing is merely the product of an ordinary mechanism; in short your points would be considered idiotic and irrelevant by anyone who considered them. Son: Wow, the Empire State building sure is tall. How did they do that? Dad: Machines did that son. Son: How did the machines do it? Dad: Hydraulics, fuel, combustion engines, etc. Son: But didn�t someone come up with the idea, design it, and run the machinery? Dad: Didn�t I teach you not to believe in fairy tales? quote: Google "quorum sensing". Oh, I thought you had a serious point.

drmark -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 10:15:40 PM)
Aww, Jack, your patience quotient is slipping. [;)]

drj11 -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 11:22:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Son: Wow, the Empire State building sure is tall. How did they do that? Dad: Machines did that son. Son: How did the machines do it? Dad: Hydraulics, fuel, combustion engines, etc. Son: But didn�t someone come up with the idea, design it, and run the machinery? Dad: Didn�t I teach you not to believe in fairy tales? I still cant get over the idea that you think DNA is somehow analogous enough human inventions that it automatically makes sense to infer design. I do really wanna get in on this whole dialog thing though. Indiana Jones: Hey look at those pyramids, wonder who built those? Sidekick: Wow, cool but look at that mountain over there, its gotta be 10 times the size of those pyramids... look at all the jagged cliffs and rocks.. thats really complicated. Thats gotta be a lot more complicated than those pyramids. Indiana Jones: So? Sidekick: Well I wonder who designed it is all. Indiana Jones: No one you dolt. Its a damn mountain. ;)

Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 11:29:39 PM)
quote: I still cant get over the idea that you think DNA is somehow analogous enough human inventions that it automatically makes sense to infer design. I do really wanna get in on this whole dialog thing though. Indiana Jones: Hey look at those pyramids, wonder who built those? Sidekick: Wow, cool but look at that mountain over there, its gotta be 10 times the size of those pyramids... look at all the jagged cliffs and rocks.. thats really complicated. Thats gotta be a lot more complicated than those pyramids. Indiana Jones: So? Sidekick: Well I wonder who designed it is all. Indiana Jones: No one you dolt. Its a damn mountain. Sidekick: Well, how do you know the pyramids didn�t form the same way the mountain did? Indiana Jones: What are you, some sort of evolutionist? I hope not, I hate those guys.

Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/8/2008 11:30:43 PM)
quote: Aww, Jack, your patience quotient is slipping. You're right - time for bed. Don't be too rough on 'em drmark.

swan42 -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/9/2008 12:55:40 AM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase I hardly expect anyone's biases to be overcome, but this is capital 'C' Cool stuff. Ack..(edit) looks like someone else beat me to Nylonase.

drmark -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/9/2008 7:45:17 AM)
quote: I hardly expect anyone's biases to be overcome, but this is capital 'C' Cool stuff. What's even COOLER is that Pseudomonas aeruginsa was first characterized as a species in 1872 and has NEVER evolved into any other kind of bacteria in over 135 years. This is equivalent to approximately one million generations of Hominids (surely ample time for monkeys to turn into men!). Creation according to kinds leads to stasis which trumps evolution once again!

gluadys -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/9/2008 9:43:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: I hardly expect anyone's biases to be overcome, but this is capital 'C' Cool stuff. What's even COOLER is that Pseudomonas aeruginsa was first characterized as a species in 1872 and has NEVER evolved into any other kind of bacteria in over 135 years. This is equivalent to approximately one million generations of Hominids (surely ample time for monkeys to turn into men!). Creation according to kinds leads to stasis which trumps evolution once again! What, in the theory of evolution, would make you expect it to become another kind of bacteria? This sort of thinking betrays ignorance of evolution, not a failure of the theory.

drmark -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/9/2008 9:57:37 AM)
quote: What, in the theory of evolution, would make you expect it to become another kind of bacteria? And what in the "theory of evolution" makes you expect Ps aer would evolve into an amoeba? This sort of thinking demonstrates the failure of the theory!

DanJames -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/9/2008 10:27:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames Are you saying that just because we haven't asked the question of how the designer did his creative work that it is impossible for Intelligence to be the answer? I am not saying it is impossible at all. What I am saying is that "Intelligent Causation"' is not an explanation because it doesn't explain anything. It is useless as an explanation. Scientists, first and foremost, are pragmatists. They prefer theories that are useful and productive. This is why they like the theory of evolution. It is very useful in the fields of comparative genomics and phylogenomics. ID is not useful. No one is using it in their research because it can't be used in it's current form. Could ID be useful in the future? It's possible, but it isn't right now. We still study genetics and make predictions based on what we know. Even if ID was a completely useless theory, would that cause the designer to no longer exist? What you are in effect saying is that because there are questions that have not yet been asked about the designer, it is impossible for a designer to have existed in the past. However, we can still ask questions about how genetics works. Even I, as a YEC have to believe that evolution works to an extent because I believe that horses, donkeys, and zebras all came from two creatures that got off of the ark. There's no escaping evolution for me, yet I also believe they were designed. What we see, is evidence for the evolution of designed creatures. Or as some prefer, variation within the kinds.

Real_Solitude -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (5/10/2008 6:31:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: I hardly expect anyone's biases to be overcome, but this is capital 'C' Cool stuff. What's even COOLER is that Pseudomonas aeruginsa was first characterized as a species in 1872 and has NEVER evolved into any other kind of bacteria in over 135 years. This is equivalent to approximately one million generations of Hominids (surely ample time for monkeys to turn into men!). Creation according to kinds leads to stasis which trumps evolution once again! Forgive my squirrely ignorance, but I've a few questions. Do you mean that every every strain of Psudomonas aeruginsa (aeruginosa?) still exists as Pseudomonas aeruginsa, or that there is a strain of Pseudomonas aeruginsa that still exists as Psudomonas aeruginsa? The first would be quite hard to substantiate, which is why it should be the burden of someone who wishes to prove that it has evolved, rather than the opposite. However, there can still exist a strain of PA that is still PA while another group of that strain has become something else. Divergent evolution is the term, I believe. This isn't to say that it has happened, but merely that point out that PA still exists isn't really a point in your favor. However, is there any reason that this bacteria should have evolved? Has there been a dramatic change to their environment in the past 135 years? Are they inefficient at something they do, as to allow for adaptation to better suit that role? From my understanding of evolution, if something is well suited to its environment, and the environment does not change, you will not see the species evolve simply because any mutation will move it further from the 'ideal' for that environment. It's bad form, when someone presents evidence that a form of bacteria has evolved to say, "But this one hasn't!" It really doesn't help your argument at all. The fact that one did would be strong evidence for evolutionary theory. The only way to void his point is to show how Nylonase isn't an example of evolution, not by stating that another bacteria hasn't evolved in X years.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI