Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: FCCJ Scholarsa Roundtable wel...

http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2009/06/... for a monday morning grin and giggle

TedHOhio wrote:

http://sciencestandards.blogsp ot.com/2009/06/monday-morning- funny-non-sequitur.html for a monday morning grin and giggle

:ROFL:

Classic creationist "logic"...!

www.vaycaninaa.net ;?

tush wrote:

www.vaycaninaa.net ;?

English?

Hmmm...

How come nobody mentions the e coli citrate thing anymore? Is it too old of news to be mentioned as proof. Or are bacteria too insignificunt.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-b...

Evidence of evolution

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+- and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)

Lil Ticked wrote:

How come nobody mentions the e coli citrate thing anymore? Is it too old of news to be mentioned as proof. Or are bacteria too insignificunt.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-b...
Evidence of evolution
The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+- and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.
Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.
In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.
Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)

It does get presented from time to time and the typical response from the IDiot/Religitard crowd is "but... but... it's still a bacteria"

TerryL wrote:

<quoted text>It does get presented from time to time and the typical response from the IDiot/Religitard crowd is "but... but... it's still a bacteria"

Point taken. They would ruin one of the coolest things involving evoling bacteria. What do they want for it to jump up and right some country song about it's lost dog and how America was founded on Christian morals?

evoling=evolving

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>Point taken. They would ruin one of the coolest things involving evoling bacteria. What do they want for it to jump up and right some country song about it's lost dog and how America was founded on Christian morals?

LOL! No, I believe they want to see something akin to a bacteria morphing into an amoeba

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>Point taken. They would ruin one of the coolest things involving evoling bacteria. What do they want for it to jump up and right some country song about it's lost dog and how America was founded on Christian morals?

The evolution of the ability to metabolize citrate represents more than people usually realize. One of the "to complex to evolve pathways" is the Krebs cycle. By showing that there is an evolutionary benefit to just this one enzyme the entirety of the Krebs cycle is fair game and thus the evolution of aerobic organisms.(I realize that E.coli are a facultative anaerobe before I get jumped on)

TerryL wrote:

<quoted text>LOL! No, I believe they want to see something akin to a bacteria morphing into an amoeba

It's *worse* than that, Jim....

I'm a Doctor, not a...**oops**

What creotards *insist* on, is a bacteria giving birth to a kangaroo, or a salmon or a sparrow or something.....

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
It's *worse* than that, Jim....
I'm a Doctor, not a...**oops**
What creotards *insist* on, is a bacteria giving birth to a kangaroo, or a salmon or a sparrow or something.....

Yeah, I know. I was just trying to keep the size scale a little closer

TerryL wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah, I know. I was just trying to keep the size scale a little closer

Why confuse'em?

To most creotards, "amoeba" and "bacteria" ARE the same!

:ROFL:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/susan_savag...
-
I think this video is highly provocative. Susan Rumbaugh shows video of a chimp using a lighter to start a fire, drive a golf cart, play video games, and draw pictographs referring to it's desires.
-

Noodly James wrote:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/ eng/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_a pes_that_write.html
-
I think this video is highly provocative. Susan Rumbaugh shows video of a chimp using a lighter to start a fire, drive a golf cart, play video games, and draw pictographs referring to it's desires.
-

I *knew* it. Politicians and creationists really *are* just chimps, shaved and dressed up....

<eyeroll>

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
I *knew* it. Politicians and creationists really *are* just chimps, shaved and dressed up....
<eyeroll>

I think that chimps maybe too high up on the ladder for some.

Brother Lee Love wrote:

<quoted text>
This is exactly why I've said what I said when I said it. Evolutionists don't even agree, one with another. Some don't refute the existance of "God," while others do. With all the money used to try to prove this theory, we could be feeding the hungry. Our curiosities, apparently, are more important. Want to help the economy? Shut down these laboratories that search out such nonsense that isn't going to help us one way or the other. This includes our space programs! Finding out any of these things. How is this knowledge going to help us in the long run? Is this knowledge going to bring us closer together? Self-absorbed, are we.

Yes, you are partly right, it WOULD be huge waste of money and time if they were trying to use it to prove or disprove religion. However, one of the real world practical things that came out of the application of this theory is the invention of many modern medicines like antibiotics. I guarantee that you personally have benefited from medical research that is founded on the idea of the evolution of organisms.

TN Reader wrote:

Yes, you are partly right, it WOULD be huge waste of money and time if they were trying to use it to prove or disprove religion. However, one of the real world practical things that came out of the application of this theory is the invention of many modern medicines like antibiotics. I guarantee that you personally have benefited from medical research that is founded on the idea of the evolution of organisms.

Rather telling that he never mentioned warfare as a huge waste of money and time.

DNAunion wrote:

<quoted text>
Those are not sulfur-based organisms: they are carbon based, just like all other life known.

True. but maybe they were referring to those worms at the bottom of the ocean.

Robert Stevens wrote:

<quoted text>
My theory on this si both groups are just addicted to proving Christianity wrong.

AY: I continue to state that belief in the supernatural is irrational because there is no evidence for it. Religion is just wishful thinking wrapped in lots of verbiage.