Cyanobacteria, our little hero
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2014, 11:03 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014 11:13 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
There is no micro evolution vs macro evolution written about in any peer-reviewed journal in the wolrd. There is no need to prove "micro+micro=macro", and the entire concept doesn't exist, and is so preposterously ridiculous. No real scientist would even try. Stop spamming your shit, troll. There are consequences here for it.

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, 11:05 PM
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 10:50 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 10:28 PM)Godexists Wrote:  "Why would bacteria adapt to thrive in an anaerobic habitat and produce aerobic waste?" Is a nonsensical question.

Its not what i asked. Again :

i don't know what selection pressure there should be for ancient bacterias, that were perfectly fine to live in a anaerobic envyronment, to evolve photosynthesis.

i might clarify : Oxygen would have damaged the DNA of the bacterias, so why would they have invented Photosynthesis, which would have produced a waste product, that would kill them ??

You're mixing up Cyanobacteria inhabiting an anaerobic environment with anaerobic bacteria.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_organism

And none of the adaptations of Cyanobacteria scream "Irreducible Complexity!"

We're talking billions of years, and you were provided a link you ignored about bacterial adaptation to antibiotics in a 60-70 year period.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 11:07 PM
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 11:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no micro evolution vs macro evolution written about in any peer-reviewed journal in the word. There is no need to prove "micro+micro=macro", and the entire concept doesn't exist, and is so preposterously ridiculous. No real scientist would even try. Stop spamming your shit, troll. There are consequences here for it.

So you plagiarize me now ? And threatening me ? Am i suppose to be afraid ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 11:10 PM
Cyanobacteria, our little hero
Are you claiming ownership of the "theory" that "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" are one and the same?

P.S.: Thank you for re-quoting my point about the rapid adaptation of bacteria with no response.

“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, 11:12 PM
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 10:57 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The simple way to look at this is that these tiny organisms are made up of a combination of molecules and, given infinite time and space, they form an organism, not by "chance" but because the concept of infinity means that probability theory means they "must". That is what probability theory is. Einstein

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 11:12 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014 11:17 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 11:07 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 11:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no micro evolution vs macro evolution written about in any peer-reviewed journal in the word. There is no need to prove "micro+micro=macro", and the entire concept doesn't exist, and is so preposterously ridiculous. No real scientist would even try. Stop spamming your shit, troll. There are consequences here for it.

So you plagiarize me now ? And threatening me ? Am i suppose to be afraid ?

You need to look up the definition of the word plagiarize, idiot. There is no instance here or anywhere, where I plagiarized you. Why would I copy your shit, and make myself look as stupid as you.

I threaten no one. This forum has rules. You should read them. What the fuck are you doing here. Oh wait, you're next week's nut case (we get about one a week), with their "only I figured thus shit out" line. You're just the latest in a very long line of nuts. Many of them, such as yourself, suffer from this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%...ger_effect

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, 11:14 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014 11:18 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 11:12 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 10:57 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The simple way to look at this is that these tiny organisms are made up of a combination of molecules and, given infinite time and space, they form an organism, not by "chance" but because the concept of infinity means that probability theory means they "must". That is what probability theory is. Einstein

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

Quoting from an argument supporting Panspermia even further weakens your "irreducible complexity" argument.

You're simply adding time to the abundance of time fast-adapting bacteria could have developed "complex" organic systems before their appearance in Earth's geological record.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Wickramasinghe

[Image: e9uvyvem.jpg]

Grab a few more handfuls of these.

It won't strengthen your argument, but it might make you feel better.

“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, 11:15 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014 11:25 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 11:12 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 10:57 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The simple way to look at this is that these tiny organisms are made up of a combination of molecules and, given infinite time and space, they form an organism, not by "chance" but because the concept of infinity means that probability theory means they "must". That is what probability theory is. Einstein

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

Highly improbably events happen all the time. There is no way to set up a "trial" that lasts millions of years, with each succeeding step dependent on the preceding one. Troll.

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
01-03-2014, 11:40 PM
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 11:37 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 10:31 AM)toadaly Wrote:  All evolution is micro evolution / adaptation. There is nothing else.

exactly. That excludes evolution above species.

No it doesn't. "Species" is an idea we've invented for the purpose of categorization. It doesn't bound nature, it's an attempt to describe it in simplified terms.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2014, 12:07 AM
RE: Cyanobacteria, our little hero
(01-03-2014 11:12 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 10:57 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The simple way to look at this is that these tiny organisms are made up of a combination of molecules and, given infinite time and space, they form an organism, not by "chance" but because the concept of infinity means that probability theory means they "must". That is what probability theory is. Einstein

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”

The universe is infinite so the probability becomes a likelihood. On one theory, a certainty.

Do the maths.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: