The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Doctor Jimbob

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Amusingly enough creatards are trying to use this to show that goddidit!

This is the main problem in dealing with these people. No matter what evidence is thrown up to counter their claims, they'll just claim that this new evidence in fact shows their ideas are true, and the scientists are the ones twisting things.

It's like arguing with a child.

J C

[-0-] wrote: »

Eight examples of evolution in action:

1. The Peppered Moth
Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths (Biston betularia) had a light, mottled coloring which was a good camouflage against predators. Before the industrial revolution, a uniformly dark variant of the peppered moth made up 2% of the species. After the industrial revolution, 95% of peppered moths showed this dark coloration. The best explanation as to why this change in the species occurred is that the light moths lost their advantage of camouflage as light surfaces were darkened by pollution, and so light moths were eaten more frequently by birds. The peppered moth as an example of evolution has been attacked recently, usually as to the cause of the shift in coloration, but the example still stands as a major shift in a species caused by mutations leading to variation and natural selection.

2. Live Birth in three-toed Skinks
The example of the peppered moth is a nice one for textbooks because it uses a single trait. Speciation involves many mutations leading to significant changes. The yellow bellied three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis) is a lizard of New South Wales, in Australia, that appears to be undergoing the change from laying eggs to live birth. Since these skinks can either lay eggs or give birth, it gives scientists the chance to study the adaptations necessary for live birth. Skink embryos encased in an egg have an extra source of calcium that the live born skinks lack. It turns out that this nutritional difference is made up by the mother secreting extra calcium for the young held inside her. This looks like the first step on the road to developing a system like the mammalian placenta. Skinks living on the coast tend to lay eggs, probably because the warm weather is predictable and sufficient for embryonic development. Those skinks living in the cooler mountains tend to give birth to live young, the mother’s body providing a more stable temperature. It is to be predicted that these two populations will at some point separate into different species as each population becomes fixed in its reproductive strategy.

This brings up a common question in creationists – If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Well, with the skinks we would see two species formed, an egg laying and a live birthing species. Each would be best suited for their habitat. If live birthing skinks evolved from egg layers, why are there still egg layers? Because each is adapted for its niche.

3. The Arms Race Between Crabs and Muscles
Evolution often happens in tandem; a predator evolves an improved hunting method, and any mutations in the prey species that aid survivability will be selected for leading to a change in the prey population. We do not have to wait for a predator to evolve to observe this, however; modern humans have been transporting species around the world, and thus we can observe new species interactions. The Asian shore crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus) is an invasive species in New England which feeds on the native blue mussels. It has recently been observed that mussels, when they detect Asian shore crabs, develop thicker shells to stop the crabs eating them. This shell thickening behavior is costly to the mussels, and so is heavily regulated. The evolutionary factor here is that only mussels from regions where Asian shore crabs are endemic will thicken their walls when exposed to the crabs. Those mussels from other regions do not detect the crabs as a threat. Here we observe the starting shots in an evolutionary arms race.

4. Italian Wall Lizards
In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards (Podarcis sicula) were introduced to the island of Pod Mrčaru from a neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. The wall lizards on Pod Mrčaru, having passed through a tiny genetic bottleneck, were found to have thrived and adapted to their new island. They were found to have shifted from a mainly insectivorous diet to one heavy in vegetation. This diet change seems to have driven dramatic changes in the lizards. The head of the Pod Mrčaru lizards is larger, and has a far greater bite force. These are key adaptations for dealing with chewing leaves. The most exciting sign of evolution is the development of cecal valves, muscles used to separate portions of the intestine. These serve to slow the passage of food through the intestine and give time for the bacteria in the gut to breakdown the plant matter for absorption. This is an entirely novel development in the Italian wall lizard, and a major adaptation.

5. Cane Toads
The cane toad in Australia is probably one of the world’s most famous invasive species. It does immense harm to agriculture and native species. Australia is big, for those who don’t know, and it takes time for an invasive species to spread. Those toads at the front of the invasion wave are likely those best adapted for spreading fastest. Of course, these fast-spreading toads will breed with each other as only other fast toads will be at the front. This is charmingly called ‘the Olympic village effect’ and will reinforce the adaptations which put these toads at the front. When toads at the front of the invasion wave were studied, they were found to be bigger, hardier, had longer legs allowing for greater speed, and were more active. As a result of these sorts of adaptations the rate at which cane toads spread has been increasing ever since they were introduced.

6. Darwin's Finches
This is not going to be a simple recap of Darwin’s original observations of adaptation amongst the finches of the Galapagos. These finches are still helping evolution be understood. Peter and Rosemary Grant studied the finches on one of the Galapagos Islands, and have observed evolutionary change caused by direct competition of two rival species. The medium ground finch was well established on the isle of Daphne, and had been studied in depth. Its beak was suited perfectly for cracking large nuts. In 1982, the large ground finch from a neighboring island arrived. These larger finches could drive away the native medium ground finches and would eat all the large nuts. Over the period of study, the medium ground finches of Daphne island were found to have developed smaller beaks more suited to the smaller nuts, ignored by the invading larger finches. This is a classic study in evolutionary biology.

7. Butterflies and Parasites
Studying evolution can take decades, but occasionally change happens incredibly rapidly. The Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina) of the Samoan islands was being attacked by a parasite which destroyed male embryos. This led to a gender imbalance whereby males made up only 1% of the butterfly population. However, within ten generations (~1 year) males had returned to 40% of the population. This is not because the parasite has disappeared, it is still present, but it is no longer deadly to male embryos. This case shows how a mutation giving an advantage can rapidly spread throughout a population. Any male with the ability to survive infection would be able to mate with a great many females, due to the paucity of other males, and spread his immunity through the gene pool.

8. Evolution in the lab
As the huge array of drug resistant pathogens grows we are learning that evolution is easiest to observe in species with a quick generation turnover. Since 1988, in the lab of Richard Lenski, the evolution of twelve E. coli populations from a single ancestor strain has been studied. Since then, over 50,000 generations of E. coli have been and gone, and the differences between the populations and each population from the ancestor strain have been documented. With samples of each population taken regularly the accumulated genetic changes can be followed with ease. Over time the bacteria have become far more efficient at growing under the conditions used. This study has provided evidence of how evolution actually occurs. One of the populations developed the ability to utilize citrate as a nutrient, something otherwise unknown in E. coli under similar conditions. “Life Evolves!” This quote is from a brilliant letter Lenski wrote to a particularly odious creationist. The series of letters can be found here

Source: http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2fLgDx

Eight examples of Natural Selection in action within Kinds and using pre-existing genetic diversity and epigenetic shifts (that also use pre-existing genetic CFSI within the organisms concerned).

[-0-] wrote: »

Since 1988, in the lab of Richard Lenski, the evolution of twelve E. coli populations from a single ancestor strain has been studied. Since then, over 50,000 generations of E. coli have been and gone, and the differences between the populations and each population from the ancestor strain have been documented.

... and all they have 'achieved' after 50,000 generations (equivalent to 1,500,000 Human years) is the ability to use Citrate ... an ability which is found in many other bacteria already ... bacteria like E. aerogenes (which is microscopically identical to E Coli and therefore the same Kind).

Since Our Lord was on Earth bacteria have undergone almost 4 million generations equivalent to 40 million years of mammalian 'time' at an average generation length of 10 years ... or roughly the time taken to supposedly 'evolve' a rat-like creature into a man ... and yet bacteria are pretty much indestinguishable from the bacteria that existed in the year Zero AD ... while 'evolution' is supposed to have changed a rat into a Man over a similar number of generations.

Somebody is engaging in wishful thinking here ... and it's certainly not me!!!:)

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's like arguing with a child.

Quite ... but not in a good way ... for Evolution!!!:D

Sarky

J C wrote: »

... and all they have 'achieved' after 50,000 generations (equivalent to 1,500,000 Human years) is the ability to use Citrate ... an ability which is found in many other bacteria already ... bacteria like E. aerogenes (which is microscopically identical to E Coli and therefore the same Kind).

Since Our Lord was on Earth bacteria have undergone almost 4 million generations equivalent to 40 million years of mammalian 'time' at an average generation length of 10 years ... or roughly the time taken to supposedly 'evolve' a rat-like creature into a man ... and yet bacteria are pretty much indestinguishable from the bacteria that existed in the year Zero AD ... while 'evolution' is supposed to have changed a rat into a Man over a similar number of generations.

I just don't know where to even begin with this latest idiocy. "Oh, that evolution of a new trait from scratch doesn't count because I don't believe in convergent evolution despite the evidence I JUST LOOKED AT". You're painfully bad at this. Do you get a sexual kick out of humiliating yourself in front of microbiologists or something? Let's just add phylogenetics to the ever-increasing list of things you're clueless about. It really is sad that you're so proud of your boundless ignorance.

Somebody is engaging in wishful thinking here ... and it's certainly not me!!!:)

You do literally nothing else. Will you ever argue rationally?

J C

Sarky wrote: »

I just don't know where to even begin with this latest idiocy. "Oh, that evolution of a new trait from scratch doesn't count because I don't believe in convergent evolution despite the evidence I JUST LOOKED AT". You're painfully bad at this. Do you get a sexual kick out of humiliating yourself in front of microbiologists or something? Let's just add phylogenetics to the ever-increasing list of things you're clueless about. It really is sad that you're so proud of your boundless ignorance.

... as I'm a qualified microbiologist, amongst other things, I don't feel in the least 'humiliated' in front of my fellow microbiologist colleagues.
... and besides engaging in some lame 'name calling' do you have anything substantive to say about my substantive points? ...
... that the cited examples of supposed 'evolution' are eight examples of Natural Selection in action within Kinds and using pre-existing genetic diversity and epigenetic shifts (that also use pre-existing genetic CFSI within the organisms concerned).

... and over the past 2,000 years, bacteria have undergone almost 4 million generations equivalent to 40 million years of mammalian 'time' at an average generation length of 10 years ... or roughly the time taken to supposedly 'evolve' a rat-like creature into a man ... and yet bacteria are pretty much indestinguishable from the bacteria that existed 2,000 years ago ... while 'evolution' is supposed to have changed a rat into a Man through Natural Selection ... over a similar number of generations.

Sarky wrote: »

You do literally nothing else. Will you ever argue rationally?

'Physician cure thy self' ... and take your own advice ... yourself.:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... as I'm a qualified microbiologist, amongst other things, I don't feel in the least 'humiliated' in front of my fellow microbiologist colleagues.
... and besides engaging in some lame 'name calling' do you have anything substantive to say about my substantive points? ...
... that the cited examples of supposed 'evolution' are eight examples of Natural Selection in action within Kinds and using pre-existing genetic diversity and epigenetic shifts (that also use pre-existing genetic CFSI within the organisms concerned).

... and over the past 2,000 years, bacteria have undergone almost 4 million generations equivalent to 40 million years of mammalian 'time' at an average generation length of 10 years ... or roughly the time taken to supposedly 'evolve' a rat-like creature into a man ... and yet bacteria are pretty much indestinguishable from the bacteria that existed 2,000 years ago ... while 'evolution' is supposed to have changed a rat into a Man through Natural Selection ... over a similar number of generations.

'Physician cure thy self' ... and take your own advice ... yourself.:)

J C, once again you show you have absolutely no idea what evolution actually means. I'd try to explain it to you but 1) You won't listen and 2) Others with much more knowledge than me on the topic have tried and failed over the years.

I cringe a little every time I see the word 'kind' used in this context. It's as if a load of creationists got together and thought 'how can we talk about species without using the word species?'. Because of course that would be giving ground to the 'evolutionists' wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

Sarky

J C wrote: »

... as I'm a qualified microbiologist, amongst other things,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

... as I'm a qualified microbiologist, amongst other things,

What other things? I know you have also claimed to be a mathematician...

MrP

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

... as I'm a qualified microbiologist, amongst other things,

And I suppose your alleged wife reads your alleged parchments using her alleged microscope, which I talked about before.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

... the things that people suffer ... for their faith ... in Evolution!!!
Just because the poor girl thinks that she is descended from an Amoeba ... is no reason to laugh at her.

You're very bold Sarky for putting such ideas in our heads!!!:D

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And I suppose your alleged wife reads your alleged parchments using her alleged microscope, which I talked about before.

... she doesn't need a microscope for either my parchments ... or my testimonials !!!:D:)

Sarky

Presumably because crayon doesn't do small letters very well.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

J C, once again you show you have absolutely no idea what evolution actually means. I'd try to explain it to you but 1) You won't listen and 2) Others with much more knowledge than me on the topic have tried and failed over the years.

... it has been my experience that the phrase 'tried and failed' comes up quite a lot with Evolution ... something to do with it's invalidity, I think.:)

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I cringe a little every time I see the word 'kind' used in this context. It's as if a load of creationists got together and thought 'how can we talk about species without using the word species?'. Because of course that would be giving ground to the 'evolutionists' wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

Kind encompasses a number of species descended from a common Kind (or ancestor) ... something that Evolutionists are quite familiar with ... only they then go and say that just because a Lion and a Tiger are descended from a common ancestor ... that it somehow 'logically' follows that they are also descended from an Amoeba!!!
... and thereby lose all credibility, in the process.:):pac:

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... it has been my experience that 'tried and failed' comes up quite a lot with Evolution ... something to do with it's invalidity, I think.:)

Kind encompasses a number of species descended from a common Kind (or ancestor) ... something that Evolutionists are quite familiar with ... only they then go and say that just because a Lion and a Tiger are descended from a common ancestor ... that it 'logically' follows that they are also descended from an Amoeba!!!
... and thereby lose all credibility in the process.:):pac:

Apart from the fact that no one expect you says any of that nonsense of course. But sure who needs facts when the big man upstairs is on your side.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Apart from the fact that no one expect you says any of that nonsense of course. But sure who needs facts when the big man upstairs is on your side.

When the 'Big Man Upstairs' is on your side ... so too are the facts!!!:)

Anyway, is it not true that Evolutionists believe that all mammals are ultimately descended from a single-celled 'common ancestor' organism that would have looked something like an Amoeba???

obplayer

J C wrote: »

... as I'm a qualified microbiologist, amongst other things,....:)

Could I ask where you studied please?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

When the 'Big Man Upstairs' is on your side ... so too are the facts!!!:)

Anyway, is it not true that Evolutionists believe that all mammals are ultimately descended from a single-celled 'common ancestor' organism that would have looked something like an Amoeba???

Yes, it is true.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yes, it is true.

So you guys do believe that a Lion is descended from an Amoeba ... with nothing added but time and selected mistakes.

I couldn't possibly muster such great faith!!:)

How do you do it?

J C

obplayer wrote: »

Could I ask where you studied please?

I'm pleading the 5th Amendment on that one!!:)

obplayer

J C wrote: »

I'm pleading the 5th Amendment on that one!!:)

I rest my case.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

I'm pleading the 5th Amendment on that one!!:)

Figures!

Was it somewhere in Texas?

J C

obplayer wrote: »

I rest my case.

... it's a bit of a tired case allright.:)

... and should be put to bed.

obplayer

Pherekydes wrote: »

Figures!

Was it somewhere in Texas?

Or Appalachia?

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

So you guys do believe that a Lion is descended from an Amoeba ... with nothing added but time and selected mistakes.

No we believe you haven't the slightest clue about what evolution actually is and you've made no effort to understand it.

J C

Jernal wrote:

No we believe you haven't the slightest clue about what evolution actually is and you've made no effort to understand it.

... does this also apply to Doctor Jimbo?

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yes, it is true. (that all mammals are ultimately descended from a single-celled 'common ancestor' organism that would have looked something like an Amoeba).

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

So you guys do believe that a Lion is descended from an Amoeba ... with nothing added but time and selected mistakes.

I couldn't possibly muster such great faith!!:)

How do you do it?

Yeah, good point J C, when you put it that way it does sound ridiculous. We're all such fools.

Obviously what actually happened is every single animal alive today came from a few dozen animals, at an incredibly high rate of diversification which has stopped because, well, just because. And all these original animals were but there by God a few thousand years ago. You're right J C. Thats much more believable.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... does this also apply to Doctor Jimbo?

All animals descended from a single common ancestor: true.

Amoeba - Lion: False.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

All animals descended from a single common ancestor: true.

Amoeba - Lion: False.

You did say it was true here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88536992&postcount=797

... I know that Evolutionists often 'flip flop' on aspects of evolution ... but half an hour must be a record!!!:D:)

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yeah, good point J C, when you put it that way it does sound ridiculous. We're all such fools.

... something like like Biology being the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose ... but your faith prevents you from actually believing this.;)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

You did say it was true here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88536992&postcount=797

... I know that Evolutionists regularly 'flip flop' on many aspects of evolution ... but half an hour must be a record!!!:D:)

:rolleyes:

Ziphius

J C wrote: »

You did say it was true here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88536992&postcount=797

... I know that Evolutionists regularly 'flip flop' on many aspects of evolution ... but half an hour must be a record!!!:D:)

Something that looks like an amoeba =/= an amoeba.