“This is exactly why it is so useless to debate creationists.”

I can see how you would think that. But what you don’t know is that I already, in what little we have covered so far, have a better understanding of your views, where you are coming from,and am more open to seeing the merit of your views as well. I actually believe there is a slim chance that the E-coli could have mutated into what it is today.

“odds are that was the case.”
That wasn’t a good choice of words. I knew it isn’t a science fair project. what I meant was, over twenty years, there is a decent chance a very small mistake involving microscopic organisms could have happened. Mistakes happen to the best of us.
This could have been the case.

“You are using terms like “may very well” and “probably,” but you have nothing to support this hypothesis.”

The reason I use those terms is because I do not wish to hang myself with my own words by stating possibilities as fact when I have not personally studied the lizards.

“but you have nothing to support this hypothesis.”

The ability to switch from a PRIMARILY insect-eating diet to a plant eating diet may very well have already been in their metabolism. The fact that the lizard survived and adjusted so quickly SUPPORTS this.

“The only people who claim evolution is a theory of chance are creationists. Your statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.”

My apologies. I am honestly curious. Unless natural selection is some kind of Guiding force, Isn’t It chance? If evolution wasn’t guided, and was just left to itself with nothing guiding it, isn’t that kind of selection based on random chance?

“Furthermore, in this entire exchange, you have not presented a single shred of evidence that supports your 6-day creation hypothesis.”

OK. my bad. I’ll start simple.

1. In archaeological finds, we see very complected languages and culture all of a sudden there. With little or no singe of development.

2.in 1988, a 90% complete T rex skeleton was discovered in which there were red blood cells still in the partially fossilized femur. These red blood cells provide excellent evidence that the fossils found are not millions of years old, but are no more than a few thousand years old.

I definitely have more, but for now,that’s enough to start with.

“You aren’t interested in the truth.”

That’s a pretty significant statement. Please do this simple thing. Define “truth” for me.

Report comment to moderator

The only people who claim evolution is a theory of chance are creationists. Your statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

Sansend: “one of the questions I have, is what was their former environment like in comparison to the new one? Were there the same kind of plants on the first Island as the second? To further Illustrate my point I’ll tell you a quick story. I lived in an environment where, I was allergic to things that are around me pollen, etc. I also have difficulty breathing in Humidity.When I visited a relative in Arizona I found I could breath very freely and could do much more with out getting out of breath, etc.I was all around healthier. Why? Because I was in an environment that better suited my needs.”

The lizards developed new structures in their digestive tracts due to different selection pressure in the new environment. This has nothing to do with a single individual reacting differently to various situations. Again, I don’t think you have an understanding of how evolution works.

Sansend: “what they don’t give is information like; were the plants that were on the second island on the first? and what was the insect population on the first island compared to the second?
Many carnivores can eat plants.”

The point is not that the lizards ate plants. The point is that the lizards developed significant morphological changes to assist them with eating plants under selection pressure.

Sansend: “As far as genetics are concerned,The ability to switch from a primary insect-eating diet to a plant eating diet may very well have already been in their metabolism.The fact that the lizard survived and adjusted so quickly supports this. That information was probably already there.”

You are using terms like “may very well” and “probably,” but you have nothing to support this hypothesis. Besides, it does not address the morphological changes to the lizards’ digestive tracts.

Sansend: “Extra information doesn’t just appear, even if you wait a million years. Something out of the ordinary must happen.Information must be added, which is not ordinary.”

You really need to get your information from someone who knows what they are talking about. Genetic “information” (which is a poor choice of term) gets added ALL THE TIME through well understood and documented mechanisms. I explained this and gave examples in my previous post. It is not out of the ordinary at all for novel sequences of DNA to emerge from a series of mutations.

Sansend: “I’m surprised you still try to explain evolution using the macroevolution theory. Most have switch to using mutation.”

I’m sorry, but this doesn’t even make sense. Mutation describes a copying error in the genome. This can be a gene duplication, a point mutation, an insertion, a deletion, etc. Macroevolution describes evolution above the species level (which is the result of accumulated mutations, just like microevolution).

Sansend: “Information can be added through several ways.One, in conjugation,a bacterium that has a certain gene can give it to one that doesn’t.Two,in transformation, a bacterium that doesn’t have a gene can get it from a dead bacterium. Three,in transduction, information is in a virus that that infects the bacteria.If they survive,they can have extra genetic information as a result.

Any of this could have happened if the E-coli was exposed to anything,even air,just once. And in an experiment that lasted twenty years, odds are that was the case.”

“Odds are?” This wasn’t a science fair project. This was a controlled, meticulously documented, real live scientific experiment. Do you really think that a research biologist didn’t take the proper precautions to protect twenty years of work from getting ruined by contaminants? Odds are that the populations of E. coli were routinely tested for contaminants and the experiment would be rolled back to the most recent “clean” version if any were found. Why on Earth do you think he was saving samples of bacteria populations?

This is exactly why it is so useless to debate creationists. I provided you with real examples of evolution occurring before our eyes and all you bother to respond with is misinformed nonsense about genetics and a bunch of baseless conjecture regarding the robustness of the findings. You aren’t interested in the truth. You are only interested in reinforcing ideas you already hold. Furthermore, in this entire exchange, you have not presented a single shred of evidence that supports your 6-day creation hypothesis. I will continue to respond to your posts if you have genuine questions about evolution, but I don’t think you do.

Report comment to moderator

Oh yeah, talkorigins. I’ve been there. It is a little more than I was looking for.If we debated on whats on that site it would take years.

as for the links,

“What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a “plastic response to the environment,”

“‘All of this might be evolution,” Hendry said. “The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes.’”

genetics. Well actually, I get to that later.

one of the questions I have, is what was their former environment like in comparison to the new one? Were there the same kind of plants on the first Island as the second? To further Illustrate my point I’ll tell you a quick story. I lived in an environment where, I was allergic to things that are around me pollen, etc. I also have difficulty breathing in Humidity.When I visited a relative in Arizona I found I could breath very freely and could do much more with out getting out of breath, etc.I was all around healthier. Why? Because I was in an environment that better suited my needs.

Also,

“Pod Mrcaru, for example, had an abundance of plants for the primarily insect-eating lizards to munch on.”

PRIMARILY insect-eating lizards.

what they don’t give is information like; were the plants that were on the second island on the first? and what was the insect population on the first island compared to the second?
Many carnivores can eat plants.

As far as genetics are concerned,The ability to switch from a primary insect-eating diet to a plant eating diet may very well have already been in their metabolism.The fact that the lizard survived and adjusted so quickly supports this. That information was probably already there. Extra information doesn’t just appear, even if you wait a million years. Something out of the ordinary must happen.Information must be added, which is not ordinary. I’m surprised you still try to explain evolution using the macroevolution theory. Most have switch to using mutation.

As for the second link,

Information can be added through several ways.One, in conjugation,a bacterium that has a certain gene can give it to one that doesn’t.Two,in transformation, a bacterium that doesn’t have a gene can get it from a dead bacterium. Three,in transduction, information is in a virus that that infects the bacteria.If they survive,they can have extra genetic information as a result.

Any of this could have happened if the E-coli was exposed to anything,even air,just once. And in an experiment that lasted twenty years, odds are that was the case.

“To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations”

He saved samples and put them in his freezer. He interacted with them and could have exposed them to other bacteria.
He also fed them. Bacteria could have gotten in that way too.

Report comment to moderator

Oh, STEVEG and GFW, Do you really believe you evolved from shear random chance?

Report comment to moderator

I think the Archaeopteryx bit is fairly well covered in the TalkOrigins link under the reptiles to birds example. Archaeopteryx is but one of many fossils that illustrate the smooth transition from bipedal dinosaurs to birds. The teeth alone are not significant in and of themselves.

Sansend: “well said but not quite accurate.There is a difference.

Macroevolution – the theory that natural selection can, over eons of time, can transform an organism into a completely different organism.”

Again, even as you have defined them, the only thing that separates these two concepts is scale. If enough small changes accumulate, it results in a large change. There is no barrier to the amount of change that can accumulate.

Sansend: “Indeed, you are an evolutionist. you hardly know anything about me,and you make an assumption based on what little you do know. (sorry if that offends you,you left yourself asking for that comment,and I mean it only in fun) your assumption holds a little merit, but is far from accurate.”

I do apologize for coming off harsh and presumptuous, but honestly, only someone completely unfamiliar with genetics and evolution would make such a statement.

Sansend: “Please do.I’m open.”

At the DNA level we have gene duplications and insertions combined with deletions or point mutations, all which have been observed and can produce novel sequences of DNA. There are also cases of horizontal gene transfer, where one organism injects a portion of its DNA into another.

At the morphological level, there has been an observed instance of a wild population of lizards developing a new structure in their digestive tract.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Another example is Richard Lenski’s experiment that shows a population of E. coli developing the ability to consume citrate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Report comment to moderator

OK, Archaeopteryx, for example, is believed to be a one of the missing links because of it’s teeth and claws.It’s supposedly the transitional form between birds and reptiles.Here are two main problems with this interpretation. one, it assumes that the birds we see to day are the only representation of proper birds.

What do you mean, the “only representation of proper birds?”

Archeopteryx is, in fact, a clear case of the transitional forms that creationists are forever claiming do not exist. It shares some characteristics with birds and some with reptiles. And it’s not limited to the obvious things like wings or teeth … it includes bone structure, the shape of the hips, etc.

Two,the Archeopteryx was not the only bird with teeth. there is a subclass Ordontornithes, that is devoted to birds with teeth. So, the teeth aren’t all that special.

Which shows that there are a good number of transitional forms for creationists to deny.

Report comment to moderator

As for the link, thank. I’ll check it out

Report comment to moderator

OK, Archaeopteryx, for example, is believed to be a one of the missing links because of it’s teeth and claws.It’s supposedly the transitional form between birds and reptiles.Here are two main problems with this interpretation. one, it assumes that the birds we see to day are the only representation of proper birds. Two,the Archeopteryx was not the only bird with teeth. there is a subclass Ordontornithes, that is devoted to birds with teeth. So, the teeth aren’t all that special. Also, there are some birds that hatch with claws and lose them when they reach maturity and no longer need them.the Ostrich have structures on there wings that some call claws.(although better called spurs in my opinion)You might say these similarities support evolution, which brings us back to macroevolution.

“Microevolution and macroevolution are exactly the same thing. The only difference is scale. Believing in one and not the other is like accepting inches, but rejecting miles.”

well said but not quite accurate.There is a difference.

Microevolution – the theory that natural selection can,over time,take an organism and transform it into a more specialized species of that organism.

Macroevolution – the theory that natural selection can, over eons of time, can transform an organism into a completely different organism.

“The “genetic information” argument indicates that you have never read anything about genetics or evolution other than creationist propaganda”

Indeed, you are an evolutionist. you hardly know anything about me,and you make an assumption based on what little you do
know. (sorry if that offends you,you left yourself asking for that comment,and I mean it only in fun) your assumption holds a little merit, but is far from accurate.

“The truth of the matter is that there are a number of verified mechanisms that can add “information” to the genome. I am not sure why this point has so much traction in the creationist camp, but it really doesn’t hold any water. I can give you examples of novel morphological traits observed to have evolved in a population and I can give you examples of events that produce novel sequences of DNA.”

Please do.I’m open.

Report comment to moderator

This may be more than you are looking for, but TalkOrigins has an extensive archive of evidence for evolution. The following link gives five clear examples of the fossil record supporting evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

Report comment to moderator

I am open to to change If I am shown good evidence. I welcome fresh view points.
“The fossil record is much better and much more supportive of evolution than you suggest.”
Could you give me one example? I’m not being conceited, I just don’t want to be overwhelmed and appear to be ignoring some of your arguments.

Report comment to moderator