Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I should add you started the discussion and brought religion into the discussion so stop blaming us


this thread was started by Bill Gill and moved from a thread that is in the general science forum.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=46789#Post46789

I did not break religion in the discussion.
I was asking questions and making some pretty good points about the proposed evolution proof that has been attached to the experiment.

I showed that the bacteria involved was manufactured in a lab
and that the bacteria did not naturally acquire the ability to metabolize citrates as in natural selection.


Quote:
If you don't want to discuss religion don't bring it into the discussion and we won't either, I am happy to respect each other.


I didn't , the first mention of Creation in the thread was made by one of the "we" you attach yourself to and that was in the original thread in the general science forum.

Bill s

Quote:
Could this quote from this week's "UK Safari" say anything relevant to the creation/evolution debate?

"Red-eared Terrapins were brought over here from United States for the pet trade. Remember the Mutant Ninja Turtle craze? When their owners found out how big they got, and how difficult they were to keep, many of those pet terrapins were let loose in ponds and lakes up and down the U.K.

They manage to survive our cold winters by sleeping at the bottom of ponds, and taking in oxygen by passing water over special membranes in the throat. It's thought that special sacs in the cloaca (rectal area) can also absorb oxygen!

It's incredible to think that while some humans are able to talk through their backsides these reptiles have actually evolved a method of breathing through them. Which begs the question, if a vet needed to resuscitate a pet terrapin with breathing difficulties... which end should get the kiss of life?"

No drawing comparisons with SAGG posters, please!!!


then the discussion was moved by Bill Gill's request to the NQS forum , in true scientific form , along with any other evidence that might offend evolution , this is a scientist way of controlling / protecting evidence that might detract from his belief system.

in the new thread the first mention of Creation was first mentioned by Bill s again.

Quote:
Which brings us back to creation - which is certainly not denied by all those who are prepared accept that evolution might have something of value to say.


the very next mention was made by Bill Gill.

Quote:
And so gentle readers once again we see that the creationists refuse to accept experiment


the first time that I mentioned Creation was on the second
page of the second thread , where I said.

Quote:
why would creationism have a need to be a science anyway?
I never have claimed that creationism was a science , I have
always just claimed that evolution is not correct.


as usual , and in true scientific form your two comments are found
to be misleading and incorrect.

Quote:
Quote:
I should add you started the discussion and brought religion into the discussion so stop blaming us


Quote:
If you don't want to discuss religion don't bring it into the discussion and we won't either, I am happy to respect each other.


I was only trying to make some sense out of the experiment , it
was the "us" and "we" who vectored the discussion towards
Creation.

as I said earlier.

Quote:
I have said many times that I
didn't want to discuss religion on a science discussion forum ,
it is the non believers that seem to want to discuss religion.


I only wanted to discuss evolution , but I suppose that
evolution is only to be discussed between evolutionist.

this way the "us" and "we" can pat each other on the back and
prove themselves to be correct to themselves.







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul

I only wanted to discuss evolution , but I suppose that
evolution is only to be discussed between evolutionist.

But Paul, your discussion of evolution seems to be a flat denial. You don't offer any alternate explanation of the facts that are explained by evolution, except creationism or something of the sort, which doesn't explain the facts. In fact the only known support for creationism is found in Genesis, which is a religious document, not a scientific document. As such this discussion was properly moved to the NQS forum.

Your "explanation" of the experiment with which I started this thread is totally invalid, which I showed. You claim the bacteria used in the experiment were created in a laboratory. Actually they were selected in a laboratory, not created. The selection allowed their characteristics to be carefully described. This allowed a very good understanding of what could be expected from them in a long term breeding experiment. The ability to metabolize citrates was totally unexpected. And it only happened in one of 12 breeding populations and only after 30,000 generations. Under those conditions I fail to see how you can say that the ability to metabolize citrates was already built into them. If it had been then more than one of the populations should have developed the ability long before 30,000 generations. The only viable explanation is that they evolved the ability over a lengthy period of time in terms of generations. That is just what would be expected from the theory of evolution.

And so gentle readers you see how once again how creationists refuse to accept valid observations which illustrate the operation of evolution.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
But Paul, your discussion of evolution seems to be a flat denial. You don't offer any alternate explanation of the facts that are explained by evolution, except creationism or something of the sort, which doesn't explain the facts. In fact the only known support for creationism is found in Genesis, which is a religious document, not a scientific document. As such this discussion was properly moved to the NQS forum.


I don't need to offer any alternate explanation of the
supposed truths / fact's that evolution claims.

evolution should not need Creation to be found incorrect
evolution only need's to be found correct itself.

until evolution is found to be correct it cannot be said to be correct , it remains a theory , an idea , a hunch , a thought.

you can't say that evolution is correct because Creation has no proof.

properly moved you say , improperly moved I say.

sweep it under a rug , so that it wont be seen.

Quote:
in fact the only known support for creationism is found in Genesis


I say the largest support for Creationism is in the fact that
evolution cannot be proven.

evolution needs to prove itself using evidence not documents.

by my questioning the proposed evidence that you posted and having
you move the thread to the NQS forum shows that you have little
faith or trust in evolution.







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Your "explanation" of the experiment with which I started this thread is totally invalid, which I showed. You claim the bacteria used in the experiment were created in a laboratory. Actually they were selected in a laboratory, not created. The selection allowed their characteristics to be carefully described. This allowed a very good understanding of what could be expected from them in a long term breeding experiment. The ability to metabolize citrates was totally unexpected. And it only happened in one of 12 breeding populations and only after 30,000 generations. Under those conditions I fail to see how you can say that the ability to metabolize citrates was already built into them. If it had been then more than one of the populations should have developed the ability long before 30,000 generations. The only viable explanation is that they evolved the ability over a lengthy period of time in terms of generations. That is just what would be expected from the theory of evolution.


mutations occur in nature , that is not evolution is is natural.
orac posted that in an image , inbreeding in humans causes mutations.

in only a few generation's of human in breeding the differences are easily seen.
continued in breeding results in deformities , large changes.

a dog will eat his own excrement if that is the only choice he has.

do you call that evolution?

the bacteria was only allowed a chosen selection to choose from.

but you call that evolution.

it was a rigged experiment to try and prove evolution , even though bacteria have metabolized citrates in the past and still do, which
can easily be proven , and it can easily be shown that this
particular breed of bacteria has ancestors that have metabolized citrates in the past.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Paul, for your information, [/i]Escherichia coli[i]does NOT utilize citrate. It is one of the distinguishing features of [/i]E. coli[i] that differentiates it from another genus, [/i]Citrobacter[i], which DOES utilize citrate. The fact that this strain of [/i]E. coli[i] acquired the ability to metabolize citrate by the accumulation of two mutations in two genes it carries is proof that bacteria can evolve, given selective factors in the environment, to use chemicals for food that they were not able to utilize before. By [/i]evolving[i] in this manner, the resulting organism would probably be placed in the genus [/i]Citrobacter[i] if it were discovered in the wild. Whatever you provide as a food source, sooner or later some bacteria or fungi will evolve to utilize it. With all the agricultural chemicals we are spreading in our environment, we are providing a selection pressure, and I daresay it is possible that somewhere out there are bacteria which have evolved to be able to degrade them. Even glyphosate is broken down in the soil by bacteria eventually, and it is wholly man-made and unnatural. Given enough time, there will arise some bacteria or fungi that are able to degrade plastics. Life takes advantage of whatever resources are available to it, and [/i]evolves[i] to meet all challenges.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
it was a rigged experiment to try and prove evolution

Paul, if it was rigged can you give us a step by step account of how it was rigged? Both Amaranth and I have pointed out that E. Coli has never been able to metabolize citrates. So there must have been some slight of hand someplace. Since you spotted it so easily you should be able to point to just the place where the rigging took place. And be sure that it is a precise thing they did, since so far you have just said it was rigged, but with no clear explanation of what they did to rig it.

By the way. Can you tell me what they got out of this? This is a very long and involved experiment. I don't see that anybody is getting enough out of it to pay for the trouble. Dr. Lenski of course has a secure place in his university, but I'm not aware that university professors are getting rich off of their research, at least not off of general research that doesn't lead to something that can be sold at a profit. In fact I think that he would get a whole lot more if he some how proved that evolution wasn't real.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Paul, if it was rigged can you give us a step by step account of how it was rigged?


why sure , Bill

I wouldn't put it past a scientist or a student these day's to introduce a mutagen into the mix just to prove evolution because
he has a personal grievance with Creation or religion , or
because he has been paid to do so.

especially since I have encountered what I have encountered on this forum.

that's step 1

there are no other step's

this experiment might show a probable cause of evolution
but it does not prove evolution , however until it has been replicated by other scientist
and might I add scientist that are creationist
I will not believe that it is proof of evolution or a probable cause of evolution.












3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Paul, if it was rigged can you give us a step by step account of how it was rigged?


why sure , Bill

I wouldn't put it past a scientist or a student these day's to introduce a mutagen into the mix just to prove evolution because
he has a personal grievance with Creation or religion , or
because he has been paid to do so.

especially since I have encountered what I have encountered on this forum.

that's step 1

there are no other step's

this experiment might show a probable cause of evolution
but it does not prove evolution , however until it has been replicated by other scientist
and might I add scientist that are creationist
I will not believe that it is proof of evolution or a probable cause of evolution.


Paul, that isn't a direct demonstration that the thing was rigged. It is just your idea of what could have happened based on your prejudices. You wouldn't be able to win a court case with that kind of evidence, and you certainly won't convert any body who actually looks at the evidence.

For your information, if you didn't check to see how the experiment was carried out. They didn't just observe the change. All through the experiment they took routine samples of the bacteria in the flasks and froze them, so they could check to see what happened. That was how they determined in what generations the 2 mutations that were required to allow the bacteria to metabolize citrates occurred. That makes it very difficult for somebody to mess with the experiment.

But the gentle readers we don't expect anything like logic from somebody who refuses to look at all the evidence for evolution, but still refuses to believe in it. Actually of course not looking at the evidence is important, because there is so much of it that they could not refuse to believe it.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
as I have read it was like the experiment began on
monday , and on saturday a difference was noted.

after apx 22,000 generations.

and today is Sunday.

and BTW , the bacteria in question did / does have the internal ability
to process citrates.

it just never had the ability to cross the cell barrier before.

which narrows the needs to find the reason why this suddenly occured at the 22k marker !

I wonder what year that would have been?



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul


why sure , Bill

I wouldn't put it past a scientist or a student these day's to introduce a mutagen into the mix just to prove evolution because
he has a personal grievance with Creation or religion , or
because he has been paid to do so.

especially since I have encountered what I have encountered on this forum.

that's step 1

there are no other step's

this experiment might show a probable cause of evolution
but it does not prove evolution , however until it has been replicated by other scientist
and might I add scientist that are creationist
I will not believe that it is proof of evolution or a probable cause of evolution.



You keep saying keep religion out of science discussion but here above you have bought your nutter religious beliefs front and centre into the discussion as your PRIME AND ONLY REASON for not believing science.

HOW DO YOU PROPOSE I ANSWER YOUR OBJECTIONS WITHOUT DISCUSSING YOUR NUTTER FUNDEMENTALIST RELIGIOUS BELIEFS?


I can speak for me personally I don't set out to upset or aggrevate you but it is your ridiculous assertions like the lunacy above that gets you into those discussions that cause you so much angst and your GOD beaten up.

So I ask you gently do you wish to retract the lunacy in your above statement or shall we start discussing what the lunacy is based around BECAUSE YOU STARTED THE DISCUSSION ON IT WITH THAT STATEMENT?

Last edited by Orac; 12/23/12 03:51 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_citrate

Quote:
Potassium citrate is produced by adding potassium bicarbonate or potassium carbonate to a solution of citric acid until effervescence ceases, filtering the solution and evaporating to granulation.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
So do you retract your statement that science somehow rigs results?

See my issue Paul science doesn't give a flying toss whether there is a GOD if evolution and big bang are wrong you could make those 3 things facts and what happens in science will not be changed one bit.

We would simply be teaching GOD made laws, these are those laws and we would still need to use and learn those laws to feed the people, fight disease and do whatever it is GOD expects us to do.

It's usually a central part of relgions that you can't expect GOD to solve every problem in your life you are still expected to make your way in the world and that would involve and is what science is.

Thats why it is completely stupid to think SCIENCE gives a rats arse about the existance or not of a GOD we don't care and to suggest that science would need to cover up something is ridiculous.

Personally if I could disprove evolution of big bang I would do so in a heartbeat because Nobel prize fame and fortune await ... I can't and that's the issue to you.

On your side whether or not GOD exists matters because your religion ceases to exist. We get why science causes you such aggrevation but we will only cut you so much slack.

SCIENCE DOESN'T CEASE TO EXIST IF THERE IS A GOD ... GET IT

Last edited by Orac; 12/23/12 04:44 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html

Quote:
the machinery for both transporting and metabolizing citrate was already present in these bacteria. But a series of knockout mutations broke the regulation of pre-existing citrate transport mechanisms, causing over-expression of a citrate transport gene, allowing citrate to be transported under both oxic and anaerobic conditions. If this is the case, then clearly this example of Darwinian "evolution" entails the loss of a molecular function, not the gain of a new one. And there was no wholesale acquisition of the ability to metabolize or, as Venema put it, "use" citrate.
In fact, as Behe notes, we don't really yet understand the precise molecular mechanisms that caused these E. coli to be able to uptake citrate under oxic conditions. So as far as we can tell, these changes entailed the origin of no new functional genes or proteins but might have resulted from a broken regulatory mechanism. We have not seen that natural selection and random mutation can produce functional, information-rich genes and proteins, and Venema is wrong to suggest otherwise.

Contra Venema, this example hardly shows the Darwinian evolution of a "new function," especially since E. coli already had the ability to uptake and metabolize citrate. Venema claims that CSI has arisen, but if we don't even know what mechanisms were involved in this change, how does he know that it is new CSI?


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
There is no point discussing anything because whatever evidence we give you will be rigged unless you retract your claim that science rigs things to show GOD doesn't exist.

WHAT DO YOU THINK WE ARE THE DEVIL'S WORK?.

Last edited by Orac; 12/23/12 05:04 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
oh,hello orac

how's that Religious study on Christianity coming along?

are you beginning to understand any of it?

if you come across something that you need help
with , just ask anyone here except me , I'm sure
they will gladly help you.

I try not to discuss Religion in a science forum.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul


I try not to discuss Religion in a science forum.



YOU CAN'T DISCUSS SCIENCE ANYHOW BECAUSE SCIENCE LIES YOUR WORDS.

HENCE DISCUSSION IS POINTLESS

RETRACT OR GO AWAY ... DEFEAT BY LOGIC YET AGAIN



Again I warn you respect goes both ways show some respect for science and I will show some respect for you crazy religion.

RESPECT IS SUPPOSED TO BE CENTRAL TO RELIGIONS USUALLY.

You can not have a scientific argument if you don't accept science because of your religious beliefs. As we are in the NQS section your religion is thus fair game.

What happens next is up to you as you deny science and it lies and that is based on your religious belief you have no actual evidence to back up that claim. That is the argument we are about to have because its all we can argue over because of your position ... you have been warned ... YET AGAIN.

If you want to accept science is science it takes no sides there is only what can be shown and tested then we can discuss things I am not trying to stop discussion.

Last edited by Orac; 12/23/12 06:16 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Again I warn you respect goes both ways show some respect for science and I will show some respect for you crazy religion.


HA !

it almost sounds like your respect would be something desired.

respect is something that is earned.

Quote:
That is the argument we are about to have because its all we can argue over because of your position ... you have been warned ... YET AGAIN.


just remember it takes two to tango.

this is my last reply to you as long as you continue
with your ranting and raving , so say what you want.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: paul
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/richard_lenskis_long_term_evol051051.html

Quote:
Contra Venema, this example hardly shows the Darwinian evolution of a "new function," especially since E. coli already had the ability to uptake and metabolize citrate. Venema claims that CSI has arisen, but if we don't even know what mechanisms were involved in this change, how does he know that it is new CSI?


"how does he know that it is new CSI?" Well,possibly because no E.coli had ever shown the ability before. And there were 12 lines that were being monitored, but only one of them actually managed to start doing something that, according to your source, it was already capable of doing. And it took 30,000 generations (from 1988 to 2008) for it to figure out how to use its already built in ability. That sounds to me something like a whole new evolutionary change. It doesn't sound like something that could be expected to occur in the general population on a regular basis.

So gentle readers we see how creationists jump on evolutionary changes that have been shown to occur and try to trivialize major changes. Some of their explanations for things that are easily shown, such as the geological record showing that species that were plentiful in lower strata are completely missing in later strata. And that species that are plentiful in later strata are completely missing in earlier strata. That one takes some really exotic rationalization.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5