Science proves creatinists wrong. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

farglebargle -> Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 4:58:53 AM)

So much for "we never see evolution happen".

We are now evolving things that didn't exist before.

http://www.sciencecodex.com/u_of_minn_researchers_unveil_first_artificial_enzyme_created_by_evolution_in_a_test_tube-105949

"While a handful of groups worldwide are developing artificial enzymes, they use rational design to construct the proteins on computers. Instead, the Seelig lab employs directed evolution. "To my knowledge, our enzyme is the only entirely artificial enzyme created in a test tube by simply following the principles of natural selection and evolution," he says."



Switcheroo1983 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 5:05:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So much for "we never see evolution happen".

We are now evolving things that didn't exist before.

http://www.sciencecodex.com/u_of_minn_researchers_unveil_first_artificial_enzyme_created_by_evolution_in_a_test_tube-105949

"While a handful of groups worldwide are developing artificial enzymes, they use rational design to construct the proteins on computers. Instead, the Seelig lab employs directed evolution. "To my knowledge, our enzyme is the only entirely artificial enzyme created in a test tube by simply following the principles of natural selection and evolution," he says."


Looks very interesting, but the link won't work for me. Nice Master Roshii avatar!



Yachtie -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 5:14:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So much for "we never see evolution happen".

We are now evolving things that didn't exist before.

http://www.sciencecodex.com/u_of_minn_researchers_unveil_first_artificial_enzyme_created_by_evolution_in_a_test_tube-105949

"While a handful of groups worldwide are developing artificial enzymes, they use rational design to construct the proteins on computers. Instead, the Seelig lab employs directed evolution. "To my knowledge, our enzyme is the only entirely artificial enzyme created in a test tube by simply following the principles of natural selection and evolution," he says."



Lets see. With phrases like "that may resemble" and "Seelig speculates the new protein resembles" I find it evolutionary speculative in the extreme. It's interesting, but not conclusive by any stretch.

"Science proves creatinists wrong". Interesting. Proof based on such as "may" and "speculates". Fascinating[8|]



farglebargle -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 5:23:50 AM)

Well, this is of course yet more evidence on top of the overwhelming evidence already existing. You are familiar with the researchers who have REPLAYED EVOLUTION from specific generations of e. coli to figure out when a particular mutation evolved.

So, my point here stands. The old canard, "We never see things evolve" is nothing more than horseshit.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 5:29:49 AM)

Evolution exists! Unless, of course, it's really more accurately described as guided genetic propagation, sorta like producing different cultivars of a plant. By this thinking, Gregor Mendel proved evolution.



Yachtie -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 6:06:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Well, this is of course yet more evidence on top of the overwhelming evidence already existing. You are familiar with the researchers who have REPLAYED EVOLUTION from specific generations of e. coli to figure out when a particular mutation evolved.

So, my point here stands. The old canard, "We never see things evolve" is nothing more than horseshit.



You'd have done better titling as Evolution gets a boost and not Science proves creatinists wrong. That's all.



mnottertail -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 7:45:18 AM)

and eaven bettur if you speeled it 'creatiOnists'.



Nosathro -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 7:47:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Well, this is of course yet more evidence on top of the overwhelming evidence already existing. You are familiar with the researchers who have REPLAYED EVOLUTION from specific generations of e. coli to figure out when a particular mutation evolved.

So, my point here stands. The old canard, "We never see things evolve" is nothing more than horseshit.



You'd have done better titling as Evolution gets a boost and not Science proves creatinists wrong. That's all.


Considering your previous posts using reports and studies to support what you believe to be true, I say this resarch project was carved in stone.



Nosathro -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 7:48:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Evolution exists! Unless, of course, it's really more accurately described as guided genetic propagation, sorta like producing different cultivars of a plant. By this thinking, Gregor Mendel proved evolution.


You mean the monk and peas?



vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 7:54:14 AM)

quote:

So, my point here stands. The old canard, "We never see things evolve" is nothing more than horseshit.

The point is adequately supported by the repeated appearance of new viruses and bacteria, especially megagerms that defy antibiotics.

However, proving natural selection in a test tube is an oxymoron.



vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 7:57:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Evolution exists! Unless, of course, it's really more accurately described as guided genetic propagation, sorta like producing different cultivars of a plant. By this thinking, Gregor Mendel proved evolution.

Hopefully, you understand that Natural Selection is not guided. Did I misunderstand your comment? Apologies if so.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 8:32:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Evolution exists! Unless, of course, it's really more accurately described as guided genetic propagation, sorta like producing different cultivars of a plant. By this thinking, Gregor Mendel proved evolution.

Hopefully, you understand that Natural Selection is not guided. Did I misunderstand your comment? Apologies if so.


Natural selection, by some definitions, can be guided. And, in this particular case, it can be defined thus. I understand your point (and really gave a hearty laugh of approval to your comment about the oxymoron), and don't completely disagree. In this experiment, it seems the "need to evolve" was given (and thus, "un-natural"), but the adaptation to the need was natural, in that the change happened and was propagated by no means other than being located within the environment. I think it would be better thought of as adaptation, rather than evolution. Politicians who change their stated beliefs depending on the winds of change, are adapting, not evolving, too.



WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 10:21:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Natural selection, by some definitions, can be guided.

Don't follow da creationists but I reckon evolution cud be reconciled with a loose creationist theory.



mnottertail -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 11:17:47 AM)

quote:


Natural selection, by some definitions, can be guided...


Then by the very definition they would be wrong defintions.

Natural selection is-------- well natural you see.

Now, unless something very subtle is meant that is not an accurate depiction here.

When the boy babboon fucks the reddest of all red assed girl babboons cuz he can of all the ones that want that babboon ass......that is natural selection.

When Gregor marries the Sweetest Pea with the Biggest Pea, that is not natural selection.



Fellow -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 11:21:30 AM)

Scientists created the enzyme. It is pure creationism. Natural selection is not evolution, it is one of the factors that is proposed to be part of the evolutionary process. Nobody doubts the natural selection takes place.



vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 11:38:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Natural selection, by some definitions, can be guided.

Don't follow da creationists but I reckon evolution cud be reconciled with a loose creationist theory.

No fucking way!



vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 11:44:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

Scientists created the enzyme. It is pure creationism. Natural selection is not evolution, it is one of the factors that is proposed to be part of the evolutionary process. Nobody doubts the natural selection takes place.

Natural selection is the primary process according to the Darwinian model. Natural selection requires change in the environment, variation within the species, adaptation to the environmental change by the more suitable variant (survival of the fittest was not Darwin's term) and usually isolation by some means so the new variant could thrive.

What other factors are proposed to explain Evolution?



vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 11:45:53 AM)

quote:

Natural selection, by some definitions, can be guided

If guided by man it is called selective breeding.

If guided by god it is called creationism.



mnottertail -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 12:19:27 PM)

And if guided by me, it's called a blowjob.



Fellow -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/1/2013 12:24:00 PM)

quote:

Natural selection is the primary process according to the Darwinian model. Natural selection requires change in the environment, variation within the species, adaptation to the environmental change by the more suitable variant (survival of the fittest was not Darwin's term) and usually isolation by some means so the new variant could thrive.

What other factors are proposed to explain Evolution?


I have spent substantial time studying evolutionary theory. I am not talking against the theory. It has been extremely useful in biology studies. Still, we can not make it a dogma. Often I find the "great debates" between evolutionists and creationists ridiculous. The basic problem is they talk past each other. The debate is actually between major philosophy directions: the evolutionists are materialists, the creationists are idealists. Where the information comes from is the basic question. If the materialist assumption is wrong their theory falls apart.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.320313E-02