Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Laboratory Speciation - Done started by Lou FCD


Posted by: Lou FCD on June 29 2007,07:14

I'm reposting this (with permission of course) from UDoJ:

Quote (JanieBelle @ June 29, 2007 – 8:09 am)
Ira Flatow talks < today on Science Friday > with Craig Venter.  Craig and his team of scientists have taken the genome of one bacteria and transplanted into another, thus changing it to another species.

Reported in today’s issue of Science (gotta pay for it), this research may be the first step in creating an artificial life form from scratch, which is just too amazing for words.

Of course creationists will have to have a huge conference on where they’ll move the goal posts now.  If they were honest, they’d just stop giving all their money to the invisible psycho in the sky who’s never been observed creating a damned thing and send it all to Craig.  I guess the key word in that sentence is “honest”.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Very cool.   Check out Science Friday this afternoon on NPR.
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 29 2007,07:19

Quote (Lou FCD @ June 29 2007,07:14)
I'm reposting this (with permission of course) from UDoJ:

 
Quote (JanieBelle @ June 29, 2007 – 8:09 am)
Ira Flatow talks < today on Science Friday > with Craig Venter.  Craig and his team of scientists have taken the genome of one bacteria and transplanted into another, thus changing it to another species.

Reported in today’s issue of Science (gotta pay for it), this research may be the first step in creating an artificial life form from scratch, which is just too amazing for words.

Of course creationists will have to have a huge conference on where they’ll move the goal posts now.  If they were honest, they’d just stop giving all their money to the invisible psycho in the sky who’s never been observed creating a damned thing and send it all to Craig.  I guess the key word in that sentence is “honest”.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Very cool.   Check out Science Friday this afternoon on NPR.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is unequivocal support for ID.  It didn't happen by chance.  It took intelligence to create this new species!  

Praise Be the Disembodied Telic Entity!!!!
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 29 2007,07:24

Hehehe.  That cracked me up.

Anyways, < here's the SciAm article >, just for DaveTard.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 29 2007,07:40

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,07:19)
This is unequivocal support for ID.  It didn't happen by chance.  It took intelligence to create this new species!  

Praise Be the Disembodied Telic Entity!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They'll have to change that to Embodied Telic Entity now.

God has a body, < and he is bald. >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on June 29 2007,08:15

We already had speciation in the lab. Raphanobrassica for one, D. paulistorum for another.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Observed instances of speciation FAQ >

Further, from the brief description of what was done, it doesn't sound like speciation in this latest instance anyway.


Posted by: jeannot on June 29 2007,08:34

Yes, I was about to add the same thing.

Speciation is the evolution of reproductive isolation, this experiment doesn't invovle such a phenomenon.

And speciation in the lab has been observed many times.
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 29 2007,08:52

I guess I was going more for the "hey look, here's something cool" with an added thumbing of the nose at the IDiots across the way, than a profound scientific statement of my own on the current state of evolutionary biology.



:D
Posted by: Lou FCD on June 29 2007,09:06

Try to think of it...






as Street Theatre.

:p
Posted by: Paul Flocken on June 29 2007,09:30

Quote (Lou FCD @ June 29 2007,08:52)
I guess I was going more for the "hey look, here's something cool" with an added thumbing of the nose at the IDiots across the way, than a profound scientific statement of my own on the current state of evolutionary biology.

Try to think of it...

as Street Theatre.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lou, I think those scienticians are just too high up there in their ivory towers to understand sometimes.
Posted by: carlsonjok on June 29 2007,09:35

Quote (Paul Flocken @ June 29 2007,09:30)
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 29 2007,08:52)
I guess I was going more for the "hey look, here's something cool" with an added thumbing of the nose at the IDiots across the way, than a profound scientific statement of my own on the current state of evolutionary biology.

Try to think of it...

as Street Theatre.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lou, I think those scienticians are just too high up there in their ivory towers to understand sometimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, they understand all too well that this is their Waterloo.  This supports the ascendancy of ID and is the final nail in the coffin of Darwinism.
Posted by: Paul Flocken on June 29 2007,10:10

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 29 2007,09:35)
Oh, they understand all too well that this is their Waterloo.  This supports the ascendancy of ID and is the final nail in the coffin of Darwinism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I rest my case.









(carlson I was making a joke on the fact that wesley and jean did not understand Lou's intent.  of course you did not understand my intent either.  sometimes it is possible to be too serious. although your joke is good too.)

Sincerely,
Paul
Posted by: Socrates on Mar. 01 2008,23:09

speciation hasn't been observed nor is there evidence for it because it can't happen. Speaking from a strictly atheist, scientific viewpoint, the proof of speciation is no proof, just sheer speculation and fantasizing while at the same time disregarding the limitations of reproduction within species.

Each species has its own limited gene pool, and can only produce its own species. Any variance or differing traits are still part of the species, so a taller human is still a human, etc... There's no dog with wings, or hairless monkeys that resemble hairless humans. So natural selection can't progress anything because all these traits still propogate the same species. Evolution would have to rely on nothing but random mutations that need to be so alien as to help propogate a different species, such as a cow with a giraffe's neck. Then, these mutations need to have successive mutations in order to bring about a larger change, such as a cow's neck becoming longer and longer. This is not only extremely rare, but physically impossible. These preliminary mutations aren't even advantageous for natural selection to work on them, nor would they necessarily always turn out properly in the new generation. If an ape is to become a human, it would have to somehow be born bipedal and start walking bipedally, and conceiving bipedal apes. If evolution has a starting point, then these preliminary changes should be seen today, as random mutations don't take millions of years to happen, because they aren't based on natural selection. We should be able to see monkeys being born bipedal, or hairless, which would then begin the process of natural selection if these traits are even advantageous, then they would be passed on. BUT, there's more problems. These apes will still mate with apes, and it's not possible to make an entirely new species while you're conceiving with the same one all the time. A hairless monkey would still be a monkey, there would be no reason for it to speciate and not be able to reproduce with monkeys anymore.

Alas we see that no physical mutation has any beneficial effects for animals or humans, nor do they turn humans into another species. If humans can evolve, then we should see kids who are sometimes born with 3 arms, to be able to live and use their arms productively, but this is the opposite. Most physical mutations even reduce fertility and increase chances of miscarriage such as Down's Syndrome.
Posted by: Richard Simons on Mar. 01 2008,23:34

Quote (Socrates @ Mar. 01 2008,23:09)
speciation hasn't been observed nor is there evidence for it because it can't happen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you know that speciation has not been observed? If it had, would that cause you to change your views? If you knew, for example, that grapefruits, Fatshedera helix, Spartina townsendii, Primula kewensis and triticale are all species of plants that have arisen in the last two or three hundred years would that cause you to wonder if your original source of information was misleading?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There's no dog with wings
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were such a creature, it would cause a major problem for the theory of evolution.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If an ape is to become a human, it would have to somehow be born bipedal and start walking bipedally, and conceiving bipedal apes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Most apes are bipedal, at least to some degree. There is recent evidence (sorry, I do not have a link, but you've probably seen photos of the family who do not walk upright) that there is a simple gene change that makes it very much easier to walk upright.

The whole tenor of your post tells me you have only the vaguest idea of what the theory of evolution is and what it implies. I suggest that before you go any further you ask questions about things that bother you rather than automatically assuming that 1,000,000 biologists and geologists are stupid.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 01 2008,23:37

And how come there are pygmies + dwarves, ANYWAY HOMEO
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Mar. 02 2008,00:18

Quote (Socrates @ Mar. 01 2008,23:09)
Alas we see that no physical mutation has any beneficial effects for animals or humans, nor do they turn humans into another species. If humans can evolve, then we should see kids who are sometimes born with 3 arms, to be able to live and use their arms productively, but this is the opposite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forgot to mention the absence of 'dats', and to ask why we still have monkeys.
Posted by: Nomad on Mar. 02 2008,02:18

It's so refreshing to get a good old fashioned denialist perspective after being inundated by some of the more elaborate and insane arguments put forth by the UDites.

Mention a list of animals that have been observed speciating and get the response "no they didn't, because it can't happen".  The numerous canine species of the world are reduced to "just a dog".

The world would be a lot simpler if we could all do that.  A slight aberration in Mercury's orbit?  No there isn't, because Newtonian Mechanics tells us how things move.  Dramatic melting of Arctic sea ice putting stress on Polar Bear populations?  No it isn't, since global warming isn't happening the Polar Bears are all fat and healthy.

Heck of a job, Brownie.  Mission Accomplished.  No recession.  No housing bubble either.

<SMACK>

What happened?  I blacked out there for a second.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Mar. 02 2008,02:50

Ye gods, the real Socrates is rolling in his grave at the total abandonment of logic by his namesake.

Come to think of it, he's probably spinning like a top. You could use him to power a propeller.

[Edited to add a word I somehow missed out]
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 02 2008,03:18

Quote (Socrates @ Mar. 01 2008,23:09)
(snip a whole steaming pile of ignorant creationist drivel)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Socrates, you may want to consider registering under a different name.

"Socrates" is the common C/E board handle used by Jonathan Sir Farty, er...Jonathan Sarfati, a well known creationist big wig moron for Creation Ministries International and an all around despicable asshole of a human being.

You sound like him already - better change while there's still time.  ;)
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 02 2008,05:53

Quote (Socrates @ Mar. 02 2008,00:09)
Speaking from a strictly atheist, scientific viewpoint, ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did anyone at all make it to the end of that sentence still buying this part?
Posted by: jeannot on Mar. 02 2008,07:16

So Socrates (yikes!) came just here to discuss a topic he knows nothing about, after having resurrected an eight-month-old thread?  That's interesting.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 02 2008,10:41

Given that the newly registered can't create topics, bumping an old topic may be the next best thing.
Posted by: BWE on Mar. 03 2008,22:05

Hmmm. Socrates, I see you got better. I guess we all see who gets the last laugh. I do have a question about something you put there in the midst of that brilliant essay (we creationists have to stick together you know).


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is not only extremely rare, but physically impossible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which one? I'm confused.
Posted by: qetzal on Mar. 04 2008,11:46

Quote (BWE @ Mar. 03 2008,22:05)
Hmmm. Socrates, I see you got better. I guess we all see who gets the last laugh. I do have a question about something you put there in the midst of that brilliant essay (we creationists have to stick together you know).
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is not only extremely rare, but physically impossible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which one? I'm confused.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Both, silly! It's physically impossible, but it has happened extremely rarely. Rarely meaning once, ~ 6000 years ago when goddidit. Physical impossibility is no problem for the Big Guy, you know.

/creotard
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 04 2008,11:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Physical impossibility is no problem for the Big Guy, you know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which means that they can't claim that evilution is impossible. ;) :p
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 04 2008,12:00

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 04 2008,12:52)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Physical impossibility is no problem for the Big Guy, you know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which means that they can't claim that evilution is impossible. ;) :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By using logic, you are assuming facts not in evidence wrt creationists, Henry.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.