the shape of proteins requires an engineer

Just reposting for the record:


That's because Creationist idiots like Cooperton avoid the definition of evolution: IT'S COMMON ANCESTRY. A turtle never turned into a monkey, a monkey never turned into a fish,an eColi never turned into a snail.

COMMON ANCESTRYmeans that all life on this planet has some commonality in their genetic profile, some greater than otherS. Primates have around a 97% genetic profile similar to humans. All life on this planet has some percentage of their DNA profile in common.

Evidence for large-scale evolution (macroevolution) comes from anatomy and embryology, molecular biology, biogeography, and fossils.

Similar anatomy found in different species may be homologous (shared due to ancestry)or analogous (shared due to similar selective pressures).

Molecular similaritiesprovide evidence for the shared ancestry of life. DNA sequence comparisons can show how different species are related.

Biogeography, the study of the geographical distribution of organisms, provides information about how and when species may have evolved.

Fossils provide evidence of long-term evolutionary changes, documenting the past existence of species that are now extinct.

If you were a biologist on a spacecraft investigating other planets and you found one with a wide variety of life, the first thing you would do is analyze the different species. If you found that they all had A COMMON LINK IN THEIR DNA, you would say that they HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON. That's how Earth would appear - all life has a common link.

Arguing with idiots like Cooperton is a waste of time. He's a liar and a fraud. He has never come up with a biology textbook that says that an eColi turns into some other creature. But that's a creationist's way of trying to trick you into believing that he's representing the real definition. HE IS NOT.

originally posted by: Phantom423

That's because Creationist idiots like Cooperton avoid the definition of evolution: IT'S COMMON ANCESTRY.

Right off the back this is patently false. Go look at my last post and you will see I specifically refer to the ape-like creature as a common ancestor.

A turtle never turned into a monkey, a monkey never turned into a fish,an eColi never turned into a snail.

I never claimed this. Phantom is trying to denigrate my argument by using hyperbolic straw-man arguments. Again, on my last post I specifically say that I do not mean this. Two mis-representations in a row from phantom, this is on brand for this user.

Primates have around a 97% genetic profile similar to humans. All life on this planet has some percentage of their DNA profile in common.

Here's another claim that's patently false. Although I don't necessarily blame phantom, because this misrepresentation is repeated constantly throughout the unscientific community. primates do not have a 97% similar genetic profile to humans. Take for example the fact that The human genome has about 150,000,000 less DNA nucleotides than chimpanzees:

human genome count

chimpanzee genome length.

This alone means they can at max be 95.8% similar, assuming all coding is identical. But the remaining is not identical.

of the remaining genome, a genetic analysis found:

"Approximately 306 Mb (9.91%) of the human sequence did not align to the chimpanzee sequence" source

This means 9.91% of the human sequence did not align with the chimpanzee genome. Add this to the fact that humans have a 4.2% smaller genome, and the max similarity can be about 86%.

Evidence for large-scale evolution (macroevolution) comes from anatomy and embryology, molecular biology, biogeography, and fossils.

So no empirical evidence of evolution actually happening.. It's mere speculation. My friend's macbook looks similar to my other friend's macbook air, doesn't mean they evolved.. rather, they came from the same creator that intelligently designed them.

Molecular similaritiesprovide evidence for the shared ancestry of life. DNA sequence comparisons can show how different species are related.

A designer would use similar code among their creation, so similar attributes among life does not prove that they emerged by evolution.

Biogeography, the study of the geographical distribution of organisms, provides information about how and when species may have evolved.

So no study that shows an organism evolving? Surely that E. Coli test must have caused some sort of evolution into salmonella or some other similar prokaryote. Nope... nothing. It's because evolution cannot happen.

Fossils provide evidence of long-term evolutionary changes, documenting the past existence of species that are now extinct.

Fossil evidence shows soft tissue in dinosaurs. They're not as old as you think:

carbon-dating dinosaur remains

And yes before you give the same knee-jerk response after googling your science lords for a retort, you can in fact carbon-date something that is older than 50,000 years old. The result would say so. But none of the results came up with the >50kya result. This was confirmed by a lab tech I was emailing. They would know if the sample was too old to be carbon-dated:

If you were a biologist on a spacecraft investigating other planets and you found one with a wide variety of life, the first thing you would do is analyze the different species. If you found that they all had A COMMON LINK IN THEIR DNA, you would say that they HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON. That's how Earth would appear - all life has a common link.

I agree, the common link is that they were all designed by the same intelligence.

Arguing with idiots like Cooperton is a waste of time. He's a liar and a fraud. He has never come up with a biology textbook that says that an eColi turns into some other creature. But that's a creationist's way of trying to trick you into believing that he's representing the real definition. HE IS NOT.

Considering you started off your statement with a lie, you might as well end it with a lie, eh? Notice they say nothing about the OP, it's because they have to resort to basic biology and ignore its intricacies. That's what the blind believers in evolution do. Whenever a biochemical dilemma arises it is simply ignored and they go back to repeating basic unfounded tenets of the theory

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Xtrozero

They self-replicate so they are making a mirror image of themselves with no divergent selection going on there, also they divide every 20 mins so no real time for external influences either. We both agree that there should be no changes even after 73,000 generations. Also, it isn't generations, it is binary fission that ends up with identical DNA pairs over and over.

This is all theoretical, since evolution doesn't actually happen...

...but it is general consensus that bacteria are capable of evolving faster than humans. So yeah 73,000 generations should yield something that is transitioning away from E. Coli. Literally any other kind of bacteria would suffice to show that evolution might remotely be possible. But it staunchly remains E. Coli after 73,000 generations.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Can you link to this research study please?

en.m.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=The%20E.,University%20of%20Texas%20at%20Austin.

They're trying to say that bigger cell size and other adaptations are evidence of evolution.. but surely we wouldnt think larger humans are any more evolved than the others. The fact is their experiment showed that 73,000 generations and E. Coli remains E. Coli. Time and time again evolution doesnt stand up to scientific scrutiny.

The study found that the E. Coli did evolve. The evidence you are using for your creation argument is in fact evidence of evolution...
The study was not designed to produce different phylums, orders or classes, it was simply to follow the evolution of one bacterium, in which it succeeds.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

The study found that the E. Coli did evolve. The evidence you are using for your creation argument is in fact evidence of evolution...
The study was not designed to produce different phylums, orders or classes, it was simply to follow the evolution of one bacterium, in which it succeeds.

It's still E. Coli. It didn't evolve. It adapted. Every organism has adaptation mechanisms. None evolve though. I can acclimate to higher elevations, it's in my genes to do so. Populations can adapt to various micro-climates, it's in their genes to do so. That's what the data shows. The data does not show that, for example, E. Coli can become a different prokaryotic organism.

I know this triggers you all, that evolution is speculative faith and not science, but that is what the empirical data shows. If there was such an experiment that evolved a prokaryotic organism into another prokaryotic organism you would be able to find it. But there's no such thing because the data doesn't show that evolution happens.

With respect, monitoring an organism without any other external factors included will almost certainly not introduce a new genus, or beyond. The organism is essentially content in its environment as there are no factors to force speciation on a taxonomic rank beyond species. All you will find, as has been proven in this case, is a variation of the existing organism.

I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but there is compelling evidence that speciation occurs after a catastrophic event, which inevitably results in mass extinctions.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
With respect, monitoring an organism without any other external factors included will almost certainly not introduce a new genus, or beyond. The organism is essentially content in its environment as there are no factors to force speciation on a taxonomic rank beyond species. All you will find, as has been proven in this case, is a variation of the existing organism.

They did compete them among ancestral strains, and also limit resources to put stress on their metabolism. The researchers themselves admitted, when the adaptations slowed down:

"Does this slowdown imply that the bacteria have, or eventually will, hit some limit on their fitness?"

This is what the data shows, that there are bounds to these adaptations. More and more we are realizing these adaptive mechanisms are reversible, as was shown by antibiotic resistance, and this is because the adaptations are pre-included potentials in the genes themselves and the gene pools.

At the end of the day, there are still no examples of evolution, even in the attempts in the "long-term evolution experiment"

I'll repeat, the experiment was designed to show evolution in E. Coli, not to produce a new organism. This experiment can't be used as evidence against evolution (as it actually proves it) or speciation (as it was not designed to show this).

As far as I know no experiment has been designed to produce a new genus or higher from a source organism.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

As far as I know no experiment has been designed to produce a new genus or higher from a source organism.

It's literally called the long term evolution experiment. They would have been thrilled to be the first scientists to show that evolution can be responsible for the origin of species by showing E. Coli can become a different prokaryote

Yes, but your definition of 'evolution' is outside the definition used by the experiment.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Yes, but your definition of 'evolution' is outside the definition used by the experiment.

What? E. Coli didn't evolve into another prokaryote after 73,000 generations. They certainly were hoping that it would, because the first lab experiment to demonstrate such a thing would be legendary. But to no avail.

I'm not shocked

No they weren't. It specifically states the experiment is not designed to initiate, produce or study speciation. The study has a limited focus, including genomic evolution. You've either wrongly assumed that or deliberately misled.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
No they weren't. It specifically states the experiment is not designed to initiate, produce or study speciation. The study has a limited focus, including genomic evolution. You've either wrongly assumed that or deliberately misled.

Where does it say that they did not want to evolve E. Coli in the long-term evolution experiment

Read it. It's in their goals and results in the Wiki article you posted and on the group's website. The experiment studies the fitness and genomic evolution of the E. Coli bacterium.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Read it. It's in their goals and results in the Wiki article you posted and on the group's website. The experiment studies the fitness and genomic evolution of the E. Coli bacterium.

Kind of preposterous that they wouldn't be hoping for it to become a different prokaryote over time given all the time and resources put into the experiment. That would be the Holy grail of evolution research. But it says their goals:

"The experiment was begun with three principal goals:

1) To examine the dynamics of evolution, including the rate of evolutionary change.
2)To examine the repeatability of evolution.
3)To better understand the relationship between change on the phenotypic and genotypic levels."

Nowhere does it say they were not trying to evolve E. Coli.

Evolve, yes. Change organism? No. The conditions of the experiment do not allow that.

"He argues that the LTEE was not designed to isolate citrate-using mutants or to deal with speciation, which is a process, not an event."

This quote is in the last para of the wiki article. It's also mentioned on their website. One of the citations also specifically says this experiment is not designed to produce anything other than evolution within the E. Coli species.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Evolve, yes. Change organism? No. The conditions of the experiment do not allow that.

"He argues that the LTEE was not designed to isolate citrate-using mutants or to deal with speciation, which is a process, not an event."

This quote is in the last para of the wiki article. It's also mentioned on their website. One of the citations also specifically says this experiment is not designed to produce anything other than evolution within the E. Coli species.

Yeah since they failed to do so that would be a good cover after the fact.

It wasn't after the fact. The goals of the experiment stated it was to measure fitness and genomic evolution, and test to those against assumptions and theories. At no point was it suggested that anything other than new strains of E. Coli would result from the experiment.

You can make as many quips as you like, but these won't change the facts.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
It wasn't after the fact. The goals of the experiment stated it was to measure fitness and genomic evolution, and test to those against assumptions and theories. At no point was it suggested that anything other than new strains of E. Coli would result from the experiment.

You can make as many quips as you like, but these won't change the facts.

"1) To examine the dynamics of evolution, including the rate of evolutionary change."

It's not a quip. There was no evolutionary change, just adaptation that eventually plateaus:

"Does this slowdown imply that the bacteria have, or eventually will, hit some limit on their fitness? "
link

The reason it plateaus is because it reaches the limits of genetic expression. Epigenetics can only adapt so far before reaching an insurmountable threshold. That is why E. Coli will never become another prokaryote.. it's because the adaptations have their limits.

originally posted by: cooperton

Kind of preposterous that they wouldn't be hoping for it to become a different prokaryote over time given all the time and resources put into the experiment. That would be the Holy grail of evolution research. But it says their goals:

It seems you think evolution is a fixed process if it exists, but it is not. There are a million variables over a very long period of time that just cannot be done in a lab experiment. 73,000 generations would show a big difference in Humans, but maybe you need 200 million generations with E Coli or more to see like changes. You are just stuck on something that only makes sense to you because you think it fits your narrative.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

There are a million variables over a very long period of time that just cannot be done in a lab experiment. 73,000 generations would show a big difference in Humans, but maybe you need 200 million generations with E Coli or more to see like changes.

You have more faith than many Christians I know