You cite one instance (Nylonase) and claim that it is sufficient proof for all the claims of evolution?
How about the fact that even Nylonase is highly disputed as a proof for evolution considering that the plasmid involved in this seems pre-disposed for this mutation? To illustrate, it was possible to get the Flavobacterium to generate the nylonase enzyme in just 9 days in the lab, while studies on the trpA gene mutations in E-coli haven't succeeded even across 2600 generations?
And oh, Flavobacterium has remained almost identical since 1889 when it was first discovered - that is, it has remained largely unchanged over hundreds and thousands of generations. That flies in the face of evolution, doesn't it?
I think the evolutionists need to cite more conclusive proof and more of them then just one highly disputed case.
Please do some research before blindly swallowing the "proofs" and "evidences" dished out by anyone - including evolutionists.
About Nylonase, I guess you haven't read the research on the nature of the plasmids involved in nylonase enzyme mutations in the Flavobacterium and how it is not possible for these plasmids to have naturally evolved to generate the enzymes unless the specific conditions for these mutations to occur pre-existed. Further research done on getting the E-coli to generate enzymes for digesting lactose has proven it. Please read the research done by Barry Hall, Ralph Seelke on E-coli bacteria.
One point - how is that Flavobacterium which was discovered in 1889 have remain pretty much the same over all these years - through hundreds and thousands of generations (equivalent to millions of years of human generations)?
In short - your example of Nylonase is suspect. Considering the claims that evolutionists are making, just citing one highly suspect instance isn't sufficient.
You have shown the circular reasoning that is common with evolutionists. On the one hand evolutions claim that natural selection implies that weaker (less evolved) will die out and be replaced by the more dominant higher evolved species. However, when it comes to pointing out that these so called weaker species have continued to survive with next to no mutations and sometimes even outliving the so-called more evolved species, evolutions go back to pointing out that "primitive" species might actually be more suited to survive these conditions than the more evolved species - even when the conditions are not known to have changed drammatically - in Java, there is no known sign of any meteorite strike or any other large scale disaster.
I think the problem may be that the evolution scientist have yet to back up all their statements with a single study done in the lab which can show even two consecutive mutations occuring in any life form and this mutation: a) proving beneficial b) surviving to the next generation
And also, there are some real problems with evolution which the evolution scientists will sweep under the rug:
a) The amount of primordial good required for a single gene to be formed out of just 1000 amino acids is so large that it would fill out not just our planet but entire galaxies. But yet, there is no evidence of any of this from any of the geological deposits - nothing.
b) Why do some species not seem to evolve at all? Take the case of the chimpanzee which has largely remained unchanged over millions of years even as humans have evolved so much.
c) Why is that some so-called primitive life forms have survived within the same habitat and even outlived the so-called more advanced life forms. For example in Java, evidence for some of the early humans (ancestors of the homo sapiens) having survived even as late as 50,000 years ago exists but then these human ancestors all died out, while a much less evolved creature (apes and other simians) who lived in the same region continued to live.
What Dawkins and his ilk conveniently side step is the fact that mutations in one generations don't always carry on to the next generation - and even if it did, it can be lost in subsequent generations. There is not much evidence to indicate that these mutations are actually cumulative.
These studies have shown quite clearly that evolution does not work even across 40,000+ generations even on a simple life form such as the E-coli when two or more mutations are required in sequence.
So before you start hand waving about my lack of understanding of evolution, I need to see some citation or link from you which conclusively proves that a multi-stage mutation has been produced in the lab even if it is a very simple one.
Truth is, it hasn't been done even once in any lab.
You think considering 32 European countries in a survey covers *most* of the world? You think Asia is a small place? or Africa?
Also, consider the fact that there are an estimated 1.7 Billion Christians on this planet. And christianity is just one religion. Consider the fact that Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism together comprises atleast another 2 Billion. I have yet to start on the Chinese religions and numerous other religions.
How many of these religious people do you think believe in evolution?
The success of wikipedia has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
1. It is not like a 1000 monkeys typing randomly on a type writer came up with the wikipedia.
2. The content of the wikipedia is controlled more so than most people think. There are editors, there is peer review etc.
3. You don't find a million slightly varying copies on a single topic which are then "naturally selected"
A wikipedia has as much value as shouting out a question in a packed stadium to receive the answers from a million people. Most of those who will bother to answer are those who will know something about the subject and most who won't answer are most likely those who don't know enough about the topic to comment.
Not just Americans, but most people across the world don't believe in evolution. Or are you deluded enough to think that America is *the* religious nation on the planet?
Your claim that chance is completely peripheral to the evolutionary theory is total bunkum. The theory of evolution is founded on the primary concept that genetic mutations occur randomly (pure chance) and some of these mutations, when beneficial, (again random chance) could be passed on to the next generation (again, pure chance) and over time it could become predominant trait in the species (pure chance).
So the different "pure chance" aspects in this theory:
a) Chance of getting a genetic mutation b) Chance that this mutation is beneficial c) Chance that this specimen survives to adulthood (when infant mortality is high) d) Chance that this mutation allows for reproduction e) Chance that the specimen with the mutation meets a mate and the reproduction occurs. f) Chance that the progeny inherits the mutation from the parent g) Chance that the progeny survives (when infant mortality is pretty high) h) Chance that multiple such progeny inherits the same mutation i) Chance that these progeny inturn mate to have more progeny j) Chance that these mutations then pass on to the next generation
If you can believe all these things occurred often enough and can believe all of that in the face of evidence that the scientists are still unable to even synthesize a single cell in the lab even using deliberate steps, then you have far greater faith than any proponent of ID.
Agreed. However, to claim that even very complex life forms can evolve without requiring any sort of intelligent guidance (the claim of Intelligent Design), it is contingent on the Evolution scientists to show that complex forms can indeed form by pure evolution. This has not been possible so far.
We are no where near being able to create even a single cell using all the intelligence and the technology around. This being the case, it is hard to argue that even more complex life forms can be formed by pure chance.
You are not in any position to determine what I may do or not do based if the scientists do produce life in the lab. You expect me to believe the scientists without any questioning "just because they say so." That type of reasoning won't wash with most people.
About your other statement about not being able to falsify intelligent design - actually, it is very easy to prove intelligent design wrong. All the scientists need to do is to let even a simple life form.. or even just a single cell come evolve in a lab. If something like that happens, it would be simple to claim that no intelligence was required for the evolution.
Actually, it is evolution which is very difficult to falsify. Evolution is about the origins of life; how does one prove that wrong without some serious time travel?
People don't necessarily believe that God exists or that God is a benevolent God looking out for their interests etc.. a lot of people don't necessarily believe a lot of what is there in most scriptures.
I think people believe in God only because they aren't convinced with the evidence for evolution that the scientific community claims to possess.
You may argue that the people are stupid not to see the evidence, but it is possible that the evidence isn't convincing either. Some how people cannot fully believe that something as complex as life and all the creatures around came about by pure chance.
To prove that it is indeed possible for something so complex to occur by pure chance, then the scientists must first produce life in a lab - not just change the DNA for an existing life form.
What can happen by pure chance should be achievable using deliberate methods. That is to say that if the scientists claim that a unicellular life form came out of the primordial goo by pure chance, then it should be possible for these same scientists to actually formulate/create the same unicellular life form by calculated steps guided from beginning to end in a reasonable time frame.
Richard Dawkins probably won't be too happy with this information. Dawkins has contended that the human appendix was an example of "unintelligent design". Perhaps he needs to rethink that theory.
Try click.sourceforge.net. Seriously. No nonsense, just a couple of jar files, no messing around with a hundred xml files, no stupid theories about IoC, Dependency Injection etc.. All pretty simple.
Thanks for posting this very interesting link. Very informative.
From what I read, the so-called primitive tribes had a diet which differs from our current diet greatly; and yet their robustness and health indicates that they may infact have been smarter than us.
Evolution of a species is not based on the said species experiencing any specific need - evolution is caused by mutation in the genes which, when beneficial, would endow the specimen with the specific mutation particular advantages which would allow it to outlive or out-reproduce other members of its own species.. and thus the specific helpful mutation is carried over to the next generation.
We have two species - the chimpanzee and the Homo erectus, occupying the same area of forest. The Home erectus has important evolutionary advantages; a much larger brain (their brain was bigger than that of the chimpanzee), the ability to walk erect, a much enhanced ability to use tools, the ability to take care of its young, the ability to plan etc.
Now how is that such an advanced species dies out while a much more primitive species not just survives but thrives virtually unchanged for millions of years?
You raise an interesting point. Actually, it raises multiple interesting points.
About monkeys themselves - humans are not considered to have evolved from monkeys but the great apes. Specifically, chimpanzees are supposed to be our close ancestors.
The earliest chimpanzee fossils date from 500000 years ago near fossils of Homo erectus or Homo rhodensiensis. So it is considered that chimpanzees and Homo erectus were contemporaries. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7917
This raises the interesting question as to how chimpanzees have remain largely unchanged while humans have evolved from Homo heidelbergensis to Homo sapiens? Interestingly, Homo erectus and early modern humans (Homo sapiens) are considered to have been contemporaries atleast for a while since a finding of fossils in Java (considered Homo erectus) is dated as late as 50,000 years ago.
Homo erectus had a brain capacity about 30% less than modern humans (1000cc vs 1300+ cc in homo sapiens) but they did not outlive even Chimpanzees in the same area. That raises a whole lot of questions about the theories which define why some species survive and some don't.
There is very little in the way of evidence for anything the author quotes in this so called "analysis."
As with everything else, I am sure the reasons for the industrial revolution was far more complex than - "Rich having more kids and people going downwardly mobile".
While it is true that the poor do tend to reproduce more, some of that has to do with the fact that the poorer folk don't have access to the birth control methods available with the rich.
Another correlating factor is that poorer women tend to have their babies at an earlier age than do the richer women.. again, because they don't really have too much control over their life and are given in marriage at an earlier age, and also are not protected against abuse as much as the richer women.
Also, in poorer societies, the children are needed for doing the work around the house and also for earning a living - which correlates with the high levels of child labour in these societies.
Put the money that you pay as insurance into something like property or in stock in some fast growing market and you may infact have more money to deal with medical emergencies than what your insurance company would pay out. For all non-emergency procedures go to Asia and have the procedure done for much less than it would cost to do in the US (even considering the cost of travel and stay).
I agree completely. Linux needs to grow in market share before it can be taken seriously by anyone, including game publishers.
For that to happen, the problems that keep Linux from gaining marketshare must be addressed. I am speaking about issues such as the difficultly in loading binary device drivers. The stock Linux kernel does include a lot of drivers, but there must really be a mechanism for loading drivers into the Linux machine even in binary form. Aand also an architecture for checking for automatic driver updates and downloading them off a driver repository.
If managing the devices on Linux as simple or simpler than on Windows, we will see a lot more people migrating to Linux from Windows.
It is pointless to say that device manufacturers must release code for their drivers, because that does not take into account the fact that there aren't enough Linux users for the device manufacturers to want to follow our dictates. If Linux gains about 30% market share, then it will be possible to get device manufacturers to release code for their drivers, but as long as Linux remains in the fringes, Linux users don't really have the type of clout it requires to demand things from hardware manufacturers.
A lot of artists believe that they must necessarily be working creatively, and that to indulge in "non-creative", "mundane" pursuits such as holding a regular job is beneath them. They would rather starve than hold one of these stupid jobs.
Regular work is not always interesting and inspiring - quite often it is boring and dull. But that is why it is called work - else it would be called play or entertainment or a hobby; and people would be willing to do it for free - and may be even pay to do it.
And also, there is also the general feeling that the society somehow owes artists something - many artists believe that themselves; while the rest of us ordinary non-artists/mortals understand that the society owes us squat and that we must earn our living - holding multiple jobs, if needed.
Fact is, I think we would have much better music, paintings, any sort of creative work, if these artists held regular jobs and did the art as a hobby.
Slashdot Mirror
You cite one instance (Nylonase) and claim that it is sufficient proof for all the claims of evolution?
How about the fact that even Nylonase is highly disputed as a proof for evolution considering that the plasmid involved in this seems pre-disposed for this mutation? To illustrate, it was possible to get the Flavobacterium to generate the nylonase enzyme in just 9 days in the lab, while studies on the trpA gene mutations in E-coli haven't succeeded even across 2600 generations?
And oh, Flavobacterium has remained almost identical since 1889 when it was first discovered - that is, it has remained largely unchanged over hundreds and thousands of generations. That flies in the face of evolution, doesn't it?
I think the evolutionists need to cite more conclusive proof and more of them then just one highly disputed case.
Please do some research before blindly swallowing the "proofs" and "evidences" dished out by anyone - including evolutionists.
About Nylonase, I guess you haven't read the research on the nature of the plasmids involved in nylonase enzyme mutations in the Flavobacterium and how it is not possible for these plasmids to have naturally evolved to generate the enzymes unless the specific conditions for these mutations to occur pre-existed. Further research done on getting the E-coli to generate enzymes for digesting lactose has proven it. Please read the research done by Barry Hall, Ralph Seelke on E-coli bacteria.
One point - how is that Flavobacterium which was discovered in 1889 have remain pretty much the same over all these years - through hundreds and thousands of generations (equivalent to millions of years of human generations)?
In short - your example of Nylonase is suspect. Considering the claims that evolutionists are making, just citing one highly suspect instance isn't sufficient.
You have shown the circular reasoning that is common with evolutionists. On the one hand evolutions claim that natural selection implies that weaker (less evolved) will die out and be replaced by the more dominant higher evolved species. However, when it comes to pointing out that these so called weaker species have continued to survive with next to no mutations and sometimes even outliving the so-called more evolved species, evolutions go back to pointing out that "primitive" species might actually be more suited to survive these conditions than the more evolved species - even when the conditions are not known to have changed drammatically - in Java, there is no known sign of any meteorite strike or any other large scale disaster.
Whether creationists believe something unscientific or not, it doesn't absolve the evolutionist from producing proof for their statement.
I think the problem may be that the evolution scientist have yet to back up all their statements with a single study done in the lab which can show even two consecutive mutations occuring in any life form and this mutation:
a) proving beneficial
b) surviving to the next generation
And also, there are some real problems with evolution which the evolution scientists will sweep under the rug:
a) The amount of primordial good required for a single gene to be formed out of just 1000 amino acids is so large that it would fill out not just our planet but entire galaxies. But yet, there is no evidence of any of this from any of the geological deposits - nothing.
b) Why do some species not seem to evolve at all? Take the case of the chimpanzee which has largely remained unchanged over millions of years even as humans have evolved so much.
c) Why is that some so-called primitive life forms have survived within the same habitat and even outlived the so-called more advanced life forms. For example in Java, evidence for some of the early humans (ancestors of the homo sapiens) having survived even as late as 50,000 years ago exists but then these human ancestors all died out, while a much less evolved creature (apes and other simians) who lived in the same region continued to live.
What Dawkins and his ilk conveniently side step is the fact that mutations in one generations don't always carry on to the next generation - and even if it did, it can be lost in subsequent generations. There is not much evidence to indicate that these mutations are actually cumulative.
Consider the work done on E-coli structures by Richard Lenski of Michigan State and also the work done by Barry Hall.
http://www2.uwsuper.edu/rseelke/What%20Can%20Evolution%20Really%20Do_05.doc
These studies have shown quite clearly that evolution does not work even across 40,000+ generations even on a simple life form such as the E-coli when two or more mutations are required in sequence.
So before you start hand waving about my lack of understanding of evolution, I need to see some citation or link from you which conclusively proves that a multi-stage mutation has been produced in the lab even if it is a very simple one.
Truth is, it hasn't been done even once in any lab.
You think considering 32 European countries in a survey covers *most* of the world? You think Asia is a small place? or Africa?
Also, consider the fact that there are an estimated 1.7 Billion Christians on this planet. And christianity is just one religion. Consider the fact that Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism together comprises atleast another 2 Billion. I have yet to start on the Chinese religions and numerous other religions.
How many of these religious people do you think believe in evolution?
The success of wikipedia has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
1. It is not like a 1000 monkeys typing randomly on a type writer came up with the wikipedia.
2. The content of the wikipedia is controlled more so than most people think. There are editors, there is peer review etc.
3. You don't find a million slightly varying copies on a single topic which are then "naturally selected"
A wikipedia has as much value as shouting out a question in a packed stadium to receive the answers from a million people. Most of those who will bother to answer are those who will know something about the subject and most who won't answer are most likely those who don't know enough about the topic to comment.
How is this in any sense similar to evolution?
Not just Americans, but most people across the world don't believe in evolution. Or are you deluded enough to think that America is *the* religious nation on the planet?
Your claim that chance is completely peripheral to the evolutionary theory is total bunkum. The theory of evolution is founded on the primary concept that genetic mutations occur randomly (pure chance) and some of these mutations, when beneficial, (again random chance) could be passed on to the next generation (again, pure chance) and over time it could become predominant trait in the species (pure chance).
So the different "pure chance" aspects in this theory:
a) Chance of getting a genetic mutation
b) Chance that this mutation is beneficial
c) Chance that this specimen survives to adulthood (when infant mortality is high)
d) Chance that this mutation allows for reproduction
e) Chance that the specimen with the mutation meets a mate and the reproduction occurs.
f) Chance that the progeny inherits the mutation from the parent
g) Chance that the progeny survives (when infant mortality is pretty high)
h) Chance that multiple such progeny inherits the same mutation
i) Chance that these progeny inturn mate to have more progeny
j) Chance that these mutations then pass on to the next generation
If you can believe all these things occurred often enough and can believe all of that in the face of evidence that the scientists are still unable to even synthesize a single cell in the lab even using deliberate steps, then you have far greater faith than any proponent of ID.
Agreed. However, to claim that even very complex life forms can evolve without requiring any sort of intelligent guidance (the claim of Intelligent Design), it is contingent on the Evolution scientists to show that complex forms can indeed form by pure evolution. This has not been possible so far.
We are no where near being able to create even a single cell using all the intelligence and the technology around. This being the case, it is hard to argue that even more complex life forms can be formed by pure chance.
You are not in any position to determine what I may do or not do based if the scientists do produce life in the lab. You expect me to believe the scientists without any questioning "just because they say so." That type of reasoning won't wash with most people.
About your other statement about not being able to falsify intelligent design - actually, it is very easy to prove intelligent design wrong. All the scientists need to do is to let even a simple life form.. or even just a single cell come evolve in a lab. If something like that happens, it would be simple to claim that no intelligence was required for the evolution.
Actually, it is evolution which is very difficult to falsify. Evolution is about the origins of life; how does one prove that wrong without some serious time travel?
People don't necessarily believe that God exists or that God is a benevolent God looking out for their interests etc.. a lot of people don't necessarily believe a lot of what is there in most scriptures.
I think people believe in God only because they aren't convinced with the evidence for evolution that the scientific community claims to possess.
You may argue that the people are stupid not to see the evidence, but it is possible that the evidence isn't convincing either. Some how people cannot fully believe that something as complex as life and all the creatures around came about by pure chance.
To prove that it is indeed possible for something so complex to occur by pure chance, then the scientists must first produce life in a lab - not just change the DNA for an existing life form.
What can happen by pure chance should be achievable using deliberate methods. That is to say that if the scientists claim that a unicellular life form came out of the primordial goo by pure chance, then it should be possible for these same scientists to actually formulate/create the same unicellular life form by calculated steps guided from beginning to end in a reasonable time frame.
Richard Dawkins probably won't be too happy with this information. Dawkins has contended that the human appendix was an example of "unintelligent design". Perhaps he needs to rethink that theory.
Try click.sourceforge.net. Seriously. No nonsense, just a couple of jar files, no messing around with a hundred xml files, no stupid theories about IoC, Dependency Injection etc.. All pretty simple.
Thanks for posting this very interesting link. Very informative.
From what I read, the so-called primitive tribes had a diet which differs from our current diet greatly; and yet their robustness and health indicates that they may infact have been smarter than us.
The same is true for so-called scientific journals.
Evolution of a species is not based on the said species experiencing any specific need - evolution is caused by mutation in the genes which, when beneficial, would endow the specimen with the specific mutation particular advantages which would allow it to outlive or out-reproduce other members of its own species.. and thus the specific helpful mutation is carried over to the next generation.
We have two species - the chimpanzee and the Homo erectus, occupying the same area of forest. The Home erectus has important evolutionary advantages; a much larger brain (their brain was bigger than that of the chimpanzee), the ability to walk erect, a much enhanced ability to use tools, the ability to take care of its young, the ability to plan etc.
Now how is that such an advanced species dies out while a much more primitive species not just survives but thrives virtually unchanged for millions of years?
You raise an interesting point. Actually, it raises multiple interesting points.
. html
About monkeys themselves - humans are not considered to have evolved from monkeys but the great apes. Specifically, chimpanzees are supposed to be our close ancestors.
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20013/0712011.htm
The earliest chimpanzee fossils date from 500000 years ago near fossils of Homo erectus or Homo rhodensiensis. So it is considered that chimpanzees and Homo erectus were contemporaries.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7917
This raises the interesting question as to how chimpanzees have remain largely unchanged while humans have evolved from Homo heidelbergensis to Homo sapiens? Interestingly, Homo erectus and early modern humans (Homo sapiens) are considered to have been contemporaries atleast for a while since a finding of fossils in Java (considered Homo erectus) is dated as late as 50,000 years ago.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec
Homo erectus had a brain capacity about 30% less than modern humans (1000cc vs 1300+ cc in homo sapiens) but they did not outlive even Chimpanzees in the same area. That raises a whole lot of questions about the theories which define why some species survive and some don't.
There is very little in the way of evidence for anything the author quotes in this so called "analysis."
As with everything else, I am sure the reasons for the industrial revolution was far more complex than - "Rich having more kids and people going downwardly mobile".
I am sorry to say this, but your friend is wrong.
While it is true that the poor do tend to reproduce more, some of that has to do with the fact that the poorer folk don't have access to the birth control methods available with the rich.
Another correlating factor is that poorer women tend to have their babies at an earlier age than do the richer women.. again, because they don't really have too much control over their life and are given in marriage at an earlier age, and also are not protected against abuse as much as the richer women.
Also, in poorer societies, the children are needed for doing the work around the house and also for earning a living - which correlates with the high levels of child labour in these societies.
Put the money that you pay as insurance into something like property or in stock in some fast growing market and you may infact have more money to deal with medical emergencies than what your insurance company would pay out. For all non-emergency procedures go to Asia and have the procedure done for much less than it would cost to do in the US (even considering the cost of travel and stay).
I agree completely. Linux needs to grow in market share before it can be taken seriously by anyone, including game publishers.
For that to happen, the problems that keep Linux from gaining marketshare must be addressed. I am speaking about issues such as the difficultly in loading binary device drivers. The stock Linux kernel does include a lot of drivers, but there must really be a mechanism for loading drivers into the Linux machine even in binary form. Aand also an architecture for checking for automatic driver updates and downloading them off a driver repository.
If managing the devices on Linux as simple or simpler than on Windows, we will see a lot more people migrating to Linux from Windows.
It is pointless to say that device manufacturers must release code for their drivers, because that does not take into account the fact that there aren't enough Linux users for the device manufacturers to want to follow our dictates. If Linux gains about 30% market share, then it will be possible to get device manufacturers to release code for their drivers, but as long as Linux remains in the fringes, Linux users don't really have the type of clout it requires to demand things from hardware manufacturers.
You speak with great wisdom, dear friend!
A lot of artists believe that they must necessarily be working creatively, and that to indulge in "non-creative", "mundane" pursuits such as holding a regular job is beneath them. They would rather starve than hold one of these stupid jobs.
Regular work is not always interesting and inspiring - quite often it is boring and dull. But that is why it is called work - else it would be called play or entertainment or a hobby; and people would be willing to do it for free - and may be even pay to do it.
And also, there is also the general feeling that the society somehow owes artists something - many artists believe that themselves; while the rest of us ordinary non-artists/mortals understand that the society owes us squat and that we must earn our living - holding multiple jobs, if needed.
Fact is, I think we would have much better music, paintings, any sort of creative work, if these artists held regular jobs and did the art as a hobby.
The 40KM limitation is the current limitation of dark fibre.
You dear Sir, just as the other grand parent are a sage!! I am not quite a gray beard.. but getting there quickly and I couldn't agree with you more.