Evolution proven in a Lab !!!

[osymandus]

New Scientist reports that evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, has confirmed evolution occuring in his lab over a 20 year period.
Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events,” he says. “That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.”
More info at New Scientist


Hmm no this could make an intresting twist for creationist theory ;)

 

[A Century United]

New Scientist reports that evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, has confirmed evolution occuring in his lab over a 20 year period.
Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events,” he says. “That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.”
More info at New Scientist


Hmm no this could make an intresting twist for creationist theory ;)

But very few people seriously doubt evolution as a progression -it's how it got started that's in debate. And while Scientists continue to sort of "blip" over how a "soup of chemicals" managed to form itself into single-celled self-sustaining sef-replicating (ie not like a virus using another organism's mechanisms) system that debate is still wide open.

The "Intelligent Design" argument is predicated on the question of "irreduceable simplicity". ie, can you show what simpler steps went together to form a more complex organism or sub-system of an organism. At the moment, Evolutionists tend to use the word "simple" very inappropriately. For example, the "simplest" single celled organism, (or cell of the human body, for example" has more working parts than a Jumbo Jet, and it hasn't yet been shown how this so called "simple" system was assembled. Until these fairly basic questions are answered, I don't think Science can claim to have "proved" that Intelligent Design is out of the question.

The other problem with Evolution is that, as a respectable Evolutionary Biologist pointed out in the New Scientist recently, people tend to try and explain everything as evolution, for example near-death experiences were described as "an evolved protective mechanism for the brain at death" when I think most people would be hard pressed to explain how something that happens extremely rarely and almost by definition after any chance of it being passed on to decendents could be driven by evolutionary pressures.

I'm not saying that the Theory of Evolution won't eventually come up with all the answers, but at the moment it is being presented as if it has when it patently hasn't!

 

[Mad Cyril]

I would say my car is quite intelligently designed but it hasn't sired any offspring to my knowledge.

 

[osymandus]

But very few people seriously doubt evolution as a progression -it's how it got started that's in debate. And while Scientists continue to sort of "blip" over how a "soup of chemicals" managed to form itself into single-celled self-sustaining sef-replicating (ie not like a virus using another organism's mechanisms) system that debate is still wide open.

The "Intelligent Design" argument is predicated on the question of "irreduceable simplicity". ie, can you show what simpler steps went together to form a more complex organism or sub-system of an organism. At the moment, Evolutionists tend to use the word "simple" very inappropriately. For example, the "simplest" single celled organism, (or cell of the human body, for example" has more working parts than a Jumbo Jet, and it hasn't yet been shown how this so called "simple" system was assembled. Until these fairly basic questions are answered, I don't think Science can claim to have "proved" that Intelligent Design is out of the question.

The other problem with Evolution is that, as a respectable Evolutionary Biologist pointed out in the New Scientist recently, people tend to try and explain everything as evolution, for example near-death experiences were described as "an evolved protective mechanism for the brain at death" when I think most people would be hard pressed to explain how something that happens extremely rarely and almost by definition after any chance of it being passed on to decendents could be driven by evolutionary pressures.

I'm not saying that the Theory of Evolution won't eventually come up with all the answers, but at the moment it is being presented as if it has when it patently hasn't!

They just using Occams razor as their refernce of simplisity which is why . And i agree with your points , theres as many fundamentalist scientist (Richard Darwkins grrr) as there are Billy Grahams and Osama Bin Ladans.

As a mind set people are to willing to accept a one size fits all theory that explains it all, which surly is impossible as each and every "sentient" mind thats percieves the universe will "see" it in a differnet manner . Which accourding to metaphysics, magickal therom and quantum phsycis becomes your reality.

That drove me nuts about OBE's as well , too many people are willing to assume that a external perception of an effect is the reality of teh effect in all dimensions (even ones not perceievable by the current method )

 

[osymandus]

I would say my car is quite intelligently designed but it hasn't sired any offspring to my knowledge.

Yet as pointed out the design for organic systems is general for more complex then any car , yet it required and intellegence to create it.
You can see the locial assumption.

 

[osymandus]

Should point out this came from a friend of mines website www.abrahadabra.net

 

[Mad Cyril]

Yet as pointed out the design for organic systems is general for more complex then any car , yet it required and intellegence to create it.
You can see the locial assumption.

It all comes down to physics in the end though.

The simplest lifeform is incredibly complex yet it makes much more sense to me that it is the result of chance combinations of matter and energy over large timescales rather than a design artefact produced by a higher power.

 

[fredheim_holm]

Interesting stuff. I'll have a read of it later.


Personally I've never read anything in the bible that contradicts the evolution theory, it only says man didnt evolve from monkey, which is still not proven.

 

[A Century United]

I would say my car is quite intelligently designed but it hasn't sired any offspring to my knowledge.

No, but when I met you on the road the other day I had kittens...


:whistling:

 

[MK Shrimper]

Interesting stuff. I'll have a read of it later.


Personally I've never read anything in the bible that contradicts the evolution theory, it only says man didnt evolve from monkey, which is still not proven.

Er.... yes is does. Without covering old ground - Are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? No. Was Adam created from dust in the ground? Yes.

 

[osymandus]

Er.... yes is does. Without covering old ground - Are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? No. Was Adam created from dust in the ground? Yes.

Clay not dust , and the breath of life represents the hebrew letter Aleph (meaning air).

And we didnt evlove from monkeys their an off shoot of the strange cannine mammal create all simians and apes came frmo .

 

[MK Shrimper]

Clay/dust whatever, "intellegent" design is quite obviously absolute nonsense and has echos of when we thought the sun revolved around a flat earth.

 

[blues_r_best]

Despite the fact that nobody thought the world was flat...

 

[osymandus]

Clay/dust whatever, "intellegent" design is quite obviously absolute nonsense and has echos of when we thought the sun revolved around a flat earth.

Its symbolic , theres a theory the Tora/OT was actually a manual for the high priest and NOT for public use.
So when it says in the begining the (God/godesses ) (Elohim the word used ) translates and possible multipule dieties male and female. Its symbolic it points to a meaning beyound words alone (like art )

Thats cheeky as you well know the heliocentric concept was greek , and recent reseach shows vurtly no one thought the world was flat (even in teh so called dark ages , you average joe couldnt care less ;) )

 

[A Century United]

Clay/dust whatever, "intellegent" design is quite obviously absolute nonsense and has echos of when we thought the sun revolved around a flat earth.

:D :D :D


So much for Scientific Proof, MK - I thought everything had to be proved a la Scientific Method?

Sounds suspiciously like faith to me!

 

[C C Csiders]

Clay not dust , and the breath of life represents the hebrew letter Aleph (meaning air).

And we didnt evlove from monkeys their an off shoot of the strange cannine mammal create all simians and apes came frmo .

Now, where's that Kevin Maher appreciation thread?

 

[MK Shrimper]

:D :D :D


So much for Scientific Proof, MK - I thought everything had to be proved a la Scientific Method?

Sounds suspiciously like faith to me!

Well there is absolutely no evidence of intellegent design where there's masses (starting with Darwin) of evolution.

I don't really understand your argument.

 

[A Century United]

Well there is absolutely no evidence of intellegent design where there's masses (starting with Darwin) of evolution.

I don't really understand your argument.

Don't agree about the evidence, MK, read "Darwin's Black Box", written by a respected scientist, for the Intelligent Design case.

My point is that that though there is a lot of evidence for Evolution, there are still huge gaps where there no evidence of how these extremely complex living systems appeared. If you insist that any theory is "impossible" without having studied the evidence for it, and insist that another theory must be right, when that theory has no current answer or evidence for the problem I have stated, then you are demonstrating a belief-system rather than a scientifically based one, and there isn't that much difference between us!

:)

 

[Mad Cyril]

In my eyes a partial explaination is infinitely more satisfactory than an explaination that relies on pure faith.

There may be a few gaps in many scientific theories but science can explain much of the universe about us. Above all it can be use to predict events. If I drop a ball it will fall. if I cool water below to 0 degrees centigrade it will freeze etc. etc.

The existence of god seems to have been deduced by a small group of people who may or may not have seen or experienced an amazing event(s) at some point in time and attributed it to a higher being.

I've never seen anything that makes me even suspect there may be a higher being. Jesus may once have turned water into wine but he didn't turn up to my wedding.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Don't agree about the evidence, MK, read "Darwin's Black Box", written by a respected scientist, for the Intelligent Design case.

My point is that that though there is a lot of evidence for Evolution, there are still huge gaps where there no evidence of how these extremely complex living systems appeared. If you insist that any theory is "impossible" without having studied the evidence for it, and insist that another theory must be right, when that theory has no current answer or evidence for the problem I have stated, then you are demonstrating a belief-system rather than a scientifically based one, and there isn't that much difference between us!

:)

Depends what you class as faith. Yes, I put my faith in science and totally refuse to believe in a "god" or "creator" as science can be proved or disproved - maybe not immediately but at some point in the future.

Faith in God cannot, and will not ever be proved unless on the day I drop dead from exhaustion after a marathon session with Sarah Beeney and the big man (or woman, or Ewok or talking banana) calls me to account.