tuppence wrote:wow....
Jovaro, you first:
You said *quote*
No, I did not say that. I used one of the simplest life forms we are aware of, as the scientists themselves did, to see if we could demonstrate evolution with that. In two and a half million linear generations of time we could get no changes other than a slightly altered metabolic pathway and a slight size change. Now, the point was that if this simple an organism cannot be induced to evolve in 2.5 million generations, by what mechanism could anything more complex evolve? It's sort of like the old alchemy thing -- if you can't get a brick to turn into gold, why think it could happen with the Great Wall of China?
Now you do it again, if a bacteria can't evolve nothing can. That is what your example is stating I guess. I disagree with your example because a bacteria is not a brick. I am not build out of bacteria.
And there are more ways to build a wall then with bricks.
The point I was making about the dogs is that we can see a great deal of variation within kind, but we do not EVER find one kind of animal changing into another -- any more than the simple E.coli could change into something other than E.coli. We can see a lot of variation within kind, but we have never seen it from one kind to another.
But even though we can see that huge variation, natural selection is still reducing the gene pool
Yes, we do see some mixing of genes in bacteria and even in some plants. Even with that, E.coli remain E.coli, ferns remain ferns, pansies stay pansies, etc. etc. etc.
I am not questioning the plants, but how do bacteria mix genes?
The idea of adaptation to environment has nothing to do with any given individual in a population. No individual can change its own genetic heritage. Adaptation means natural selection in a population. That means that those less capable of dealing with a particular ecological niche die out, presumably leaving few or no progeny. In this way the population as a whole adapts to the environment. Individuals either make it or not. However, these populations do not change what they are. Bears remain bears, crows remain crows, elephants remain elephants...
This is correct, did I ever suggest otherwise?
As far as you not caring for the truth, I don't think you do. I think you are simply having fun on this board arguing, regardless of facts or any other evidence.
Another example of how thinking does not always give the correct answer.
Jovaro again. on Sep 25, 2004 01:04 pm , you wrote
That is what is called an hypothesis. And merely the E. coli bacteria not evolving is not proof for that hypothesis.
Science note: one cannot prove an hypothesis. One can only disprove it. The evidence with
E.coli is strong support for the hypothesis that evolution cannot happen beyong simple variation within kind. Later on you responded to your own quote. Interesting tactic.... interesting statement that facts about evolution attempts are irrelevant to the discussion of evolution!
Perhaps if you reacted on my arguments for why they are irrelevant we could make this discussion something usefull.
Continuing down past the webmaster's excellent review of the scientific method,
Jovaro wrote
Of course, my back could have been lots better, just like my eyes since I don't see much without glasses.
I wouldn't want to call humans perfect, would you?
Jovaro, you are talking about what mutations really have done! Even if evolution were true, if we had evolved into this a few million years ago, we never would have made it at all! What you are seeing in your back is probably too much time at the computer and not enough outdoors working! And what you are seeing with your eyes is the result of mutations. Mutations tear down, they do not build up.
I would like some proof for that statement. In the past people with lesser sight just died unless taken care off by other people. Nowadays we can make glasses lenses and we can even make lasers to correct the vision.
I think it were the ancient Egyptians that used a twin star to test their vision, if you could see that it were two stars instead of one your vision was very good.
Bad eyes are from all times it seems.
Finally, skipping to
Jovaro's last post where he states
There is also the option that the Universe is in a loop with Big Bangs. A Bang causing the universe to expand to a certain size, afterwards it all comes to one point again, increasing pressure and temperatures and another Bang starts the cycle again.
In theory there could have been billions and billions of Bangs before the one that caused this universe, and with enough bangs, anything that is possible will happen sooner or later.
Jovaro, this is purely imaginary. There is no evidence in the slightest to indicate our universe has the gravitational or any other force necessary to collapse in on itself. You are literally mixing up facts we are aware of with a lot of fiction.
Imagination is fun, but keep it in its place.
Of course it is purely imagination. doh...
It is impossible to find any evidence for this theory because all the evidence would be destroyed in the next Big Bang. How could it be something else then just a possibility.
Imagination is fun indeed, and guess what? It is at the basis of every big discovery.
hypothesis are based on imagination. Could event A be caused by reason B? First you think of something, imagine, and then you test it. If possible...
All origin of the Universe hypothesis are extremely hard of not impossible to test.
So don't just throw away a theory because it is imagination....