What is evolution, not what some think

Evolutionists 1
borntowatch 0

Hands up anyone who was surprised.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Sorry Phantom I am just not in the mood to respond.
I can add hundreds of links as a reply and you should and could be happy with that
I wouldnt be.

I have just lost interest for the time being, maybe I will come back, but in truth this argument has been played out for decades.
I have nothing new to add, you and your friends have added nothing new...so whats the point.

Here is a link, simple and clear, even for the layman. In time I may feel it worth discussing in detail.
I know posting a link is at least the height of hypocrisy and I am guilty.
I do lest you think creationists/IDers have no simple and effective answer to your petty little challenge.

www.detectingdesign.com...

What Dr. Lenski did was to grow E. coli under oxic (oxygenated) conditions in citrate-rich media. E. coli bacteria are generally unable to use citrate under oxic conditions as a source of energy. However, they can use it under anoxic conditions. In other words, they already have the gene for citrase in their genome. It is just that it is normally turned off under oxic conditions. How is it turned off? Well, the promoter for the gene that transports citrate into the bacterium (citT) is not active under oxic conditions. So, all that needs to happen is to move the citrate transport gene close to a promoter that is actually active under oxic conditions. Once this is done, citrate will enter the bacterium and be used for energy. And, this is exactly what happened. Nothing structurally new needed to be evolved.

You're still using intelligent design propaganda websites to support your opinion?

Come on, borntowatch... you can do better than that.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Evolutionists 1
borntowatch 0

Hands up anyone who was surprised.

www.detectingdesign.com...

What Dr. Lenski did was to grow E. coli under oxic (oxygenated) conditions in citrate-rich media. E. coli bacteria are generally unable to use citrate under oxic conditions as a source of energy. However, they can use it under anoxic conditions. In other words, they already have the gene for citrase in their genome. It is just that it is normally turned off under oxic conditions. How is it turned off? Well, the promoter for the gene that transports citrate into the bacterium (citT) is not active under oxic conditions. So, all that needs to happen is to move the citrate transport gene close to a promoter that is actually active under oxic conditions. Once this is done, citrate will enter the bacterium and be used for energy. And, this is exactly what happened. Nothing structurally new needed to be evolved.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: borntowatch
Sorry Phantom I am just not in the mood to respond.
I can add hundreds of links as a reply and you should and could be happy with that
I wouldnt be.

I have just lost interest for the time being, maybe I will come back, but in truth this argument has been played out for decades.
I have nothing new to add, you and your friends have added nothing new...so whats the point.

Here is a link, simple and clear, even for the layman. In time I may feel it worth discussing in detail.
I know posting a link is at least the height of hypocrisy and I am guilty.
I do lest you think creationists/IDers have no simple and effective answer to your petty little challenge.

www.detectingdesign.com...

What Dr. Lenski did was to grow E. coli under oxic (oxygenated) conditions in citrate-rich media. E. coli bacteria are generally unable to use citrate under oxic conditions as a source of energy. However, they can use it under anoxic conditions. In other words, they already have the gene for citrase in their genome. It is just that it is normally turned off under oxic conditions. How is it turned off? Well, the promoter for the gene that transports citrate into the bacterium (citT) is not active under oxic conditions. So, all that needs to happen is to move the citrate transport gene close to a promoter that is actually active under oxic conditions. Once this is done, citrate will enter the bacterium and be used for energy. And, this is exactly what happened. Nothing structurally new needed to be evolved.

You're still using intelligent design propaganda websites to support your opinion?

Come on, borntowatch... you can do better than that.

Surely you can, cant YOU???

Irrespective of the website deal with the question unless you are S C A R E D

www.detectingdesign.com...

What Dr. Lenski did was to grow E. coli under oxic (oxygenated) conditions in citrate-rich media. E. coli bacteria are generally unable to use citrate under oxic conditions as a source of energy. However, they can use it under anoxic conditions. In other words, they already have the gene for citrase in their genome. It is just that it is normally turned off under oxic conditions. How is it turned off? Well, the promoter for the gene that transports citrate into the bacterium (citT) is not active under oxic conditions. So, all that needs to happen is to move the citrate transport gene close to a promoter that is actually active under oxic conditions. Once this is done, citrate will enter the bacterium and be used for energy. And, this is exactly what happened. Nothing structurally new needed to be evolved.

a reply to: borntowatch

1. No links. Remember?

2. This guy's whole argument isn't that it didn't happen, just that it "took too long" in his opinion. Sad.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Evolutionists 1
borntowatch 0

Hands up anyone who was surprised.

I like the way you attack me not the information I provided, Yawn......

and you wonder why I cant be bothered

originally posted by: Answer

You're still using intelligent design propaganda websites to support your opinion?

Come on, borntowatch... you can do better than that.

and you are still using evolutionist propaganda, you have brought nothing to the discussion

I am just looking for someone genuine to provide answers, they are not here.
The information was not added to the bacteria, it was already there, like here where no new information has been added

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: borntowatch

1. No links. Remember?

2. This guy's whole argument isn't that it didn't happen, just that it "took too long" in his opinion. Sad.

If thats what you understood then I can see why evolution is your only port of call, I guess you generalise the over educated masses.


www.detectingdesign.com...

What Dr. Lenski did was to grow E. coli under oxic (oxygenated) conditions in citrate-rich media. E. coli bacteria are generally unable to use citrate under oxic conditions as a source of energy. However, they can use it under anoxic conditions. In other words, they already have the gene for citrase in their genome. It is just that it is normally turned off under oxic conditions. How is it turned off? Well, the promoter for the gene that transports citrate into the bacterium (citT) is not active under oxic conditions. So, all that needs to happen is to move the citrate transport gene close to a promoter that is actually active under oxic conditions. Once this is done, citrate will enter the bacterium and be used for energy. And, this is exactly what happened. Nothing structurally new needed to be evolved.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: borntowatch

1. No links. Remember?

2. This guy's whole argument isn't that it didn't happen, just that it "took too long" in his opinion. Sad.

If thats what you understood then I can see why evolution is your only port of call, I guess you generalise the over educated masses.


www.detectingdesign.com...

What Dr. Lenski did was to grow E. coli under oxic (oxygenated) conditions in citrate-rich media. E. coli bacteria are generally unable to use citrate under oxic conditions as a source of energy. However, they can use it under anoxic conditions. In other words, they already have the gene for citrase in their genome. It is just that it is normally turned off under oxic conditions. How is it turned off? Well, the promoter for the gene that transports citrate into the bacterium (citT) is not active under oxic conditions. So, all that needs to happen is to move the citrate transport gene close to a promoter that is actually active under oxic conditions. Once this is done, citrate will enter the bacterium and be used for energy. And, this is exactly what happened. Nothing structurally new needed to be evolved.

Not true. New information, genomic restructuring - all the criteria which define evolution took place in that lab. As I said in a previous post, the experiment was not just about citrate. You don't understand evolution - so I''m not sure why you're even interested in it. You obviously don't even understand the results of the experiment.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Not true. New information, genomic restructuring - all the criteria which define evolution took place in that lab. As I said in a previous post, the experiment was not just about citrate. You don't understand evolution - so I''m not sure why you're even interested in it. You obviously don't even understand the results of the experiment.

Well as usual the floor is all yours, you explain it in detail.
Stop saying what I think or believe, don't link and explain what the new information was and how it developed

No ones stopping you from doing that, I expect there is a weight of people wanting you to do this and put me to the sword.
Unleash your scientific mind and end it

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Phantom423

Not true. New information, genomic restructuring - all the criteria which define evolution took place in that lab. As I said in a previous post, the experiment was not just about citrate. You don't understand evolution - so I''m not sure why you're even interested in it. You obviously don't even understand the results of the experiment.

Well as usual the floor is all yours, you explain it in detail.
Stop saying what I think or believe, don't link and explain what the new information was and how it developed

No ones stopping you from doing that, I expect there is a weight of people wanting you to do this and put me to the sword.
Unleash your scientific mind and end it

Happy to oblige. Will post later on today. As in my previous post which answered your question in detail, there were NO LINKS - original work. Will do the same again. But just so you understand, scientists collaborate. They share their work. Referencing the work of other scientists is a plus, not a minus. It's meant to expand your own knowledge. Why you don't understand this is a mystery.

Onward and upward.....

a reply to: borntowatch

If thats what you understood then I can see why evolution is your only port of call, I guess you generalise the over educated masses.

If you're just going to keep copy-pasting that same paragraph without reading the rest of the site you keep linking to (which is against your own rules of "no links", isn't it?), they it's pretty obvious you don't understand what you're reading.

Additionally, you're the one who kept bringing up "complex specified information", you little Dembski-ist you, can you explain how rearranging information units to create and entirely new trait in a species isn't new information being generated? Or are you saying that CEIKNORTWYY and NEWYORKCITY have the same information content?

a reply to: borntowatch

You must be bot. How else can you justify copying and pasting that same link in 3 separate posts? You have no substance. How can you tell others that they can't post links, and then go and do that exact thing to support your argument? If you won't address any of the evolutionary evidence, then why should any of us address your links that reference clearly biased websites? Do you enjoy hypocrisy and double standards or something? Do you REALLY believe that type of faulty logic proves your case?

Evolutionists 1
borntowatch 0

Hands up anyone who was surprised.

By my count it's more like

Evolution supporters: 10000
borntowatch / creationists: 0

Referencing a wall of text, linking a couple of websites and expecting me to understand the point you are driving at as opposed to a mish mash of points.

Lets work on this like a simple essay, introduce your point, support your point and then conclude that point.
It would be easier one point at a time.
I will reply to your point in kind.

a reply to: borntowatch

Or just go back all 51 pages start from the beginning and educate yourself.
Honestly why would anyone want to attempt to try after this thread you just ignore it all going "La la la "....

originally posted by: iterationzero

Additionally, you're the one who kept bringing up "complex specified information", you little Dembski-ist you, can you explain how rearranging information units to create and entirely new trait in a species isn't new information being generated? Or are you saying that CEIKNORTWYY and NEWYORKCITY have the same information content?

Prove it was a new trait, not just a dormant pre existing trait, what new information was added and how was it added.
Information was rearranged, I expect no less than information within a living organism being rearranged, thats adaptation or microevolution.
Is what you are saying an attempt at an answer or a tentative statement meant to to be a question instead of an answer.
Changing the two words is a little different than turning into a new species, huhu macro micro. We differ in our beliefs, who would have figured

You turn this into a cult of personality thing.

Focus on the questions.


Look at Barcs, he has to attack me, he steers clear of the question, its like he has no answer and has to attack the person asking the question.

Barcs, I am telling others, you included that I dont read links, I want a simple basic clear answer that is reasoned and explained.

Yes I am a bot, I noticed you didnt even consider grappling with the question, the reason I posted it three times was to encourage an answer, an answer still not forthcoming, though maybe Phantom can produce one

a reply to: borntowatch

51 pages and you tell people now lol.

a reply to: borntowatch

Referencing a wall of text, linking a couple of websites and expecting me to understand the point you are driving at as opposed to a mish mash of points.

Hypocrite.

a reply to: borntowatch

Prove it was a new trait, not just a dormant pre existing trait, what new information was added and how was it added.

They've sequenced the genome of both strains of E. coli -- the Cit+ and Cit- strains -- and they found it was a new trait. If you don't want to believe that, that's fine, you can review the evidence for it on your own and explain precisely why you don't think it's a new trait.

Information was rearranged, I expect no less than information within a living organism being rearranged, thats adaptation or microevolution.

Which is still biological evolution, creationists are the only ones who differentiate between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Examples of speciation were provided to you, you ignored them and focused in on the example of E. coli.

Changing the two words is a little different than turning into a new species, huhu macro micro. We differ in our beliefs, who would have figured

No, according to you, generating new information is the hallmark of evolution, and I just provided an example of how rearranging what's there can generate new information. If you can't grasp how duplications and insertions don't generate new raw material for mutation and trait formation, then you don't understand enough about evolution to be arguing against it.

a reply to: iterationzero

Wow, well congratulations, I think you are just beginning to understand we disagree, kudos and stars for you.

No new information was added, it was just rearranged. Micro/macro, you dont win the internet.

I can live with you being wrong yet you cant deal with me being wrong, you seem to have the issue.