Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Science proves creatinists wrong.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Science proves creatinists wrong. Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 4:58:53 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		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."

< Message edited by farglebargle -- 2/1/2013 4:59:09 AM >

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 5:05:00 AM   
Switcheroo1983


Posts: 238
Joined: 1/29/2013
Status: offline
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!

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 5:14:28 AM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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


< Message edited by Yachtie -- 2/1/2013 5:16:53 AM >

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 5:23:50 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 5:29:49 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 6:06:15 AM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 7:45:18 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		and eaven bettur if you speeled it 'creatiOnists'.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 7:47:02 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
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.


< Message edited by Nosathro -- 2/1/2013 7:49:24 AM >

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 7:48:06 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 7:54:14 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 7:57:19 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 8:32:57 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 10:21:18 AM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 11:17:47 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 11:21:30 AM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 11:38:13 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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!

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 11:44:09 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 11:45:53 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 12:19:27 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		And if guided by me, it's called a blowjob.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/1/2013 12:24:00 PM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Science proves creatinists wrong. Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094