Cyanobacteria, our little hero
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2014, 12:34 PM
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. That sentence proves you have no clue what the Theory of Evolution is all about.

So that seems now to be a new argument of atheists : when someone disagrees with the theory, its because the theory is not understood.

Welldone.

Bad for you, i understand the theory very well, and i know also, why its pseudo science, fairy tale stories for non thinking atheists :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1523-is...of-novelty

In other experiments led by Gauger and biologist Ralph Seelke of the University of Wisconsin, Superior, their research team broke a gene in the bacterium E. coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the bacteria's genome was broken in just one place, random mutations were capable of "fixing" the gene. But even when only two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution got stuck, apparently unable to restore full function.16 This is because it was more advantageous to delete a gene with low functionality or none than it was to continue to express it. This suggests that it is highly unlikely that the standard gene duplication model would produce new complex functions because gene duplicates are likely to be deleted before evolving some new function.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1490-gene-duplication

This is the mother of all ad-hoc explanations:

Phylogenetic patterns of emergence of new genes support a model of frequent de novo evolution - 21 February 2013
CONCLUSIONS:
We suggest that the overall trends of gene emergence are more compatible with a de novo evolution model for orphan genes than a general duplication-divergence model. Hence de novo evolution of genes appears to have occurred continuously throughout evolutionary time and should therefore be considered as a general mechanism for the emergence of new gene functions.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/14/117/abstract

Yup, Orphan genes (comprising 10 to 30% of every new genome sequenced, including humans) can now just ‘poof’ into existence. That whole evolutionary model of functional sequences being selected for in small increments is no good anymore. Need a new gene? Just call on ‘de novo evolution’ to do your dirty work.

Now, do the right thing : stick your theory where it belongs to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 01:09 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014 01:15 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 11:35 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 10:16 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Unfortunately, in your extended studies, you seem to have missed information about evolution basic enough to be covered in Ask.com articles:

"4. Evolution of organisms takes a very, very long time.
. . .
The key to this misconception is organisms that don't take very long to produce several different generations. Less complex organisms like bacteria or drosophila reproduce relatively quickly and several generations can be seen in days or even just hours!"

http://evolution.about.com/od/Overview/t...lution.htm

How'd you miss that? Can you provide a summary of your understanding of evolution, so we know we're talking about the same theory, and not a strawman parody courtesy your church?


No one with even a passing understanding of evolution would use terms like "micro evolution". That's a church-invented term used to deny half the process.

And if I'm reading this correctly, the only reason you have for rejecting the simple explanation above is "My church told me microevolution doesn't occur," which adds to the suspicion that you don't actually understand the material you're posting, but are parroting misconceptions because you don't understand what evolution states.

Here's a basic primer:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0_0/evo_36

if you think YOU understand the issues raised, rather than acusing me that i do not understand what i post, prove that YOU do understand the issues, and address the arguments.

Sidestepping. You can't provide a simple definition of evolution in your own words.

You mean to claim to have spent time filling up this domain: http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/

With writings on evolutionary biology, and can't provide a simple definition in your own words?

I also notice you've failed to address any of the other points raised. Why is that?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
01-03-2014, 01:11 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014 01:36 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 12:34 PM)Godexists Wrote:  So that seems now to be a new argument of atheists : when someone disagrees with the theory, its because the theory is not understood.

Nope No legitimate geneticist in the entire world talks about micro vs macro Evolution. Your pathetic argument, (you dishonest plagiarizing liar), is nothing new. The use of the words, micro vs macro PROVES you have no clue.

Bad for You Dr. Coyne is one of the world's leading experts, and YOU cannot refute ONE thing in the video I posted.

(01-03-2014 12:34 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Bad for you, i understand the theory very well, and i know also, why its pseudo science, fairy tale stories for non thinking atheists :

And the moon is made of green cheese. Posting shit you got from ONE biased site is proof of the paucity of your BS arguments.

(01-03-2014 12:34 PM)Godexists Wrote:  In other experiments led by Gauger and biologist Ralph Seelke of the University of Wisconsin, Superior, their research team broke a gene in the bacterium E. coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the bacteria's genome was broken in just one place, random mutations were capable of "fixing" the gene. But even when only two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution got stuck, apparently unable to restore full function.16 This is because it was more advantageous to delete a gene with low functionality or none than it was to continue to express it. This suggests that it is highly unlikely that the standard gene duplication model would produce new complex functions because gene duplicates are likely to be deleted before evolving some new function.

OMG. More proof you have no clue how Evolution works. You have presented insufficient information, (one of the crucial ones being TIME) ... did they observe for millions of years. This idiot statement amounts to "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys".

There is NOT ONE legitimate scientist in the ENTIRE academic world that questions the fundamental truth of Evolution.

Now go ask Jebus for forgiveness for your plagiarism. Idiot.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-03-2014, 02:05 PM
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 01:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  (you dishonest plagiarizing liar),

reported. Angry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 02:06 PM
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 01:09 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Sidestepping. You can't provide a simple definition of evolution in your own words.

moving the goal posts ??

this topic is about cyanobacteria. If you have to contribute something about the subject, feel free to do so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 02:11 PM
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 02:06 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 01:09 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Sidestepping. You can't provide a simple definition of evolution in your own words.

moving the goal posts ??

this topic is about cyanobacteria. If you have to contribute something about the subject, feel free to do so.

The topic as you yourself framed it is evolution of cyanobacteria.

So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 02:34 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014 02:42 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 02:06 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 01:09 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Sidestepping. You can't provide a simple definition of evolution in your own words.

moving the goal posts ??

this topic is about cyanobacteria. If you have to contribute something about the subject, feel free to do so.

I already did, and you have yet to address it. I'll repost it so you can respond instead of weaseling out again:

Unfortunately, in your extended studies, you seem to have missed information about evolution basic enough to be covered in Ask.com articles:

"4. Evolution of organisms takes a very, very long time.
. . .
The key to this misconception is organisms that don't take very long to produce several different generations. Less complex organisms like bacteria or drosophila reproduce relatively quickly and several generations can be seen in days or even just hours!"

http://evolution.about.com/od/Overview/t...lution.htm

How'd you miss that? Can you provide a summary of your understanding of evolution, so we know we're talking about the same theory, and not a strawman parody courtesy your church?

(01-03-2014 06:54 AM)Godexists Wrote:  . . .
thats adaptation, or micro evolution.

No one with even a passing understanding of evolution would use terms like "micro evolution". That's a church-invented term used to deny half the process.

And if I'm reading this correctly, the only reason you have for rejecting the simple explanation above is "My church told me microevolution doesn't occur," which adds to the suspicion that you don't actually understand the material you're posting, but are parroting misconceptions because you don't understand what evolution states.

Here's a basic primer:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0_0/evo_36
[/quote]

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 02:34 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 02:06 PM)Godexists Wrote:  moving the goal posts ??

this topic is about cyanobacteria. If you have to contribute something about the subject, feel free to do so.

I already did, and you have yet to address it:

(01-03-2014 02:06 PM)Godexists Wrote:  No one with even a passing understanding of evolution would use terms like "micro evolution". That's a church-invented term used to deny half the process.

And if I'm reading this correctly, the only reason you have for rejecting the simple explanation above is "My church told me microevolution doesn't occur," which adds to the suspicion that you don't actually understand the material you're posting, but are parroting misconceptions because you don't understand what evolution states.

Here's a basic primer:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0_0/evo_36

feel free to address, what selection pressure your think was there for bacterias to evolve the hability of fotosynthesis, and nitrogenase.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 02:45 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014 02:55 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Cyanobacteria, our little hero
Photosynthesis was likely for their own survival, or as a random mutation. For a self-professed "expert," you seem confused by basic evolutionary biology.

"Evolution of bacteria
Bacteria have existed from very early in the history of life on Earth.
Bacteria fossils discovered in rocks date from at least the Devonian Period (416 to 359.2 million years ago), and there are convincing arguments that bacteria have been present since early Precambrian time, about 3.5 billion years ago.
Bacteria were widespread on Earth at least since the middle of the Proterozoic Eon, about 1.5 billion years ago, when oxygen appeared in the atmosphere as a result of the action of the cyanobacteria. Bacteria have thus had plenty of time to adapt to their environments and to have given rise to numerous descendant forms."

Your claim that bacteria are slow-adapting is also a laughable mistake to anyone with a cursory understanding of biology:

"Many examples of the rapid evolution of bacteria are available. Before the 1940s, antibiotics were not used in medical practice. When antibiotics did eventually come into use, the majority of pathogenic bacteria were sensitive to them. Since then, however, the bacterial resistance to one or more antibiotics has increased to the point that previously effective antibiotics are no longer useful against certain types of bacteria."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...f-bacteria

Would you care to address any of the above, or would you prefer to continue throwing out red herrings?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 02:47 PM
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 02:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 01:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  (you dishonest plagiarizing liar),

reported. Angry

Hahahahaha Mr. -8

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: