Bacteria and Evolution

[Josh]

robin wrote:

That all sounds great, but science still has not demonstrated, observed, or found any physical evidence in the fossil record or elsewhere to support evolution. It is a fine theory, but until real evidence is provided to prove that an ape can give birth to a human I will remain a skeptic. And if you say that it is a gradual process, where is the fossil record to support this view?

Well, the whole point of this thread was to showcase one of the main evidences for evolution- evolution that can be demonstrated and observed.

For instance, bacteria, through random mutation and other factors, can form completely new abilities and systems- on a much larger scale than variations within a the dog world. The stuff that happens with bacteria would be like a dog growing a fifth leg, or being able to suddenly breath carbon dioxide.

Do you Christian evolutionists believe that humans all have Noah as a common ancestor? If so, why is it that the human race can very so significantly as it does, but dogs can not?

Just curious- who are you calling a Christian evolutionist? For myself, I'm undecided between progressive creationist and theistic evolutionist.

Yes, I do hold that all humans have Noah as a common ancestor. But dogs do vary more signficantly than humans!

I'm really behind on this thread so I"m playing catch-up guys!

[rbbailey]

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, “I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”

I think it's interesting that he is called the morning star, son of the dawn -- dawn of creation?

What is it we were actually discussing? Just like the end times, I'm along for the ride. One day all our questions will be answered. I have my theories and speculations that I have developed in a way that I think is presentable to non-believers. I don't claim to be doctrinally correct, nor do I really want to be. I do want to hold to the divinity of Christ, the all-powerful God; and I do want to be able to logically explain that science and faith are not exclusive of each other.

I would like to see some more posts here to expand upon. But I must away, to another thread I wish to start, something that this thread made me think of.

[Josh]

rbbailey wrote:

This is where I think science falls short. Not in it's ability to, over time, find the answers, but in it's inability to understand the meaning of those answers. To attribute the commonality of carbon life forms and DNA and all that to a single microbial ancestor that first showed life is to miss the point. Yes, it ALL has a common starting point -- the mind of God. And like any other artist, there are many threads, common building blocks that go from one life form to another -- even from one system to another. Why not? If one God created it all why would we expect to see major differences in DNA from an amoeba as compared to a human?

This is the perspective of Hugh Ross on common ancestry, and holds some merit. However, I tend to lean toward true common ancestry (as in God changed one species into another) because of evidence such as "junk dna" which does seem to indicate that one species became another. Ross attempts to disprove junk dna, but I'm not sure it can all be explained away. I'm curious where the science is going to lead on that issue in coming years.

[Josh]

As far as the topic of satan goes, I disagree with both of you (rbbailey and robin) ;D Here are some threads where this topic is discussed:

www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=warfare

Also, here's a link where yeshuafreak and I debate the gap theory:

www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=science&action=display&thread=2161

Feel free and add your thoughts there.

[rbbailey]

Hummmm...

[Josh]

But I must away

ere break of day?

[robin]

For instance, bacteria, through random mutation and other factors, can form completely new abilities and systems- on a much larger scale than variations within a the dog world. The stuff that happens with bacteria would be like a dog growing a fifth leg, or being able to suddenly breath carbon dioxide.

That is the nature of bacteria, it mutates. Dogs don't mutate in this manner because it is not their nature.

You also mentioned "random mutations". Is that agreeable with the popular theories on evolution? I thought that mutations were the result of adaptation. Am I wrong?

Just curious- who are you calling a Christian evolutionist? For myself, I'm undecided between progressive creationist and theistic evolutionist.

I certainly don't want to mislabel anyone, so I apologize if I did that.

Yes, I do hold that all humans have Noah as a common ancestor. But dogs do vary more signficantly than humans!

Dogs reproduce at a significantly higher rate. My family adopted a German Shepard when I was a teenager. Apparently before we had the dog she had given birth to four litters (and she was only 5 or 6 years old). Each litter consisted of at least five puppies. She produced over 20 puppies in a matter of about five years. No human can reproduce at that rate, and I'm certain women everywhere are thankful for that. At that rate of reproduction I would expect dogs to very in appearance far more that humans.

[Josh]

At that rate of reproduction I would expect dogs to very in appearance far more that humans

They do!

But their reproduction rates are nowhere near those of bacteria.

You also mentioned "random mutations". Is that agreeable with the popular theories on evolution? I thought that mutations were the result of adaptation. Am I wrong?

Enough random beneficial mutations in bacteria lead to adaptation. This happens much easier with bacteria than other more complex creatures.

[robin]

But their reproduction rates are nowhere near those of bacteria.

Perhaps I'm just dull, but I don't see how this helps your case? Given the fact as you stated it, we have yet to see bacteria evolve into another form of life.

Enough random beneficial mutations in bacteria lead to adaptation.

How does one determine that it is a random mutation or not?

And I still don't see how this observation of bacteria proved naturalistic evolution. The type of evolution that is seen here is acknowledge by creationists and evolutionists alike.

The way I see it is like this. If you are correct, or others who hold to naturalistic evolution are correct, then you would not need to grasp for straws as I believe this type of evidence does. There should, in fact, be an abundance of evidence to support evolution had it actually taken place. If solid evidence were available, I don't believe that you would never bother with this argument and present it as proof of macro evolution. There would be no need. Evolutionists are left pointing at mutations of bacteria, and saying "look! This just might prove it", when sadly it is still bacteria. Why cant evolutionists point to one of the millions of species alive today and provide actual evidence that it is now evolving into some new specie altogether?

[Josh]

Here's an article that presents this issue from the evolutionary perspective:

www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

To them, the changes that occur within bacteria are so signficant they would argue, I believe, that we are seeing the process of speciation.

I don't know that I agree, but I have to admit that changes such as these do seem much more able to produce a wholly new creature over time than any changes that are demonstrable in other animals.

And, of course, evolutionists would say that the changes that occur in larger animals are either too slow to be seen in the lab or, if the result of "punctuated equilibrium", probably too rare to be observed in the lab.

[robin]

I read the article, and many of the comments that followed. It is an interesting experiment, but it does not even venture to answer the most problematic issues facing evolutionists. Also, this kind of study must stand the test of time. Many times in the past we have heard loud boastful claims from evolutionists stating that they now have found the missing link, or through some laboratory experiment were able to recreate life from non-living substance. Only later do we find out that they were mistaken. Lets see where this goes, if an ywhere.

I thought this part of the article was very telling.

"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"

It sounds like these scientist may have an ax to grind. Is that anyway to approach science? It sounds to me like Jerry Coyne may be approaching the evidence with a bias? Can we really trust the opinions of such men? Unfortunately science has become all to political. I gave another example of that on my thread regarding global warming. Very sad.

[Josh]

Robin,

The article definitely had an ax to grind.

On another note, I just happened across an interesting link to an article by Fuzale Rana of Reasons to Believe on the subject of whether God created viruses or not.

Here's the link to the full article: www.reasons.org/VirusesandGodsProvidenceRevisited

It's interesting for a couple of reasons.

One is he talks about how viruses such as HIV are actually turning out to be useful by medical researchers to treat other diseases! (Quite fascinating in it's own right)

But secondly, here's his take on the creation of viruses:

Does that mean God created pathogenic viruses? I suggest that the answer is yes. Pathogens control plant and animal populations and consequently play an important ecological role. What about viral pathogens that infect humans? In this case, I argue no. Rather, I propose that human viruses evolved from animal viruses, jumping hosts.

I think this might be my stance as well.

[rbbailey]

Evolution between finches on the Galapagos has recently been observed. Scientists were stunned by their ability to classify a new species of finch while they observed it over time.

Once again though...

...the issue of time: Something that all the text books say is supposed to take 10's of thousands of years took only a handful. Discovering new things tends to throw current scientific theory for a loop -- God is a constant.

...the interpretation of what really happened: Is the change in a beak size on the face of a finch the same thing as saying that prehistoric goats eventually turned into whales? (No, I didn't make that up.)

[Josh]

Nov 28, 2009 22:24:03 GMT -8 rbbailey said:

Evolution between finches on the Galapagos has recently been observed. Scientists were stunned by their ability to classify a new species of finch while they observed it over time.

...the interpretation of what really happened: Is the change in a beak size on the face of a finch the same thing as saying that prehistoric goats eventually turned into whales? (No, I didn't make that up.)

One huge problem with any discussion like this is that the scientifici community has not agreed on a standard definition of the word species.

I believe, from reading about this before, that the various galapagos finches can still interbreed, so by that definition, they have not speciated.

Also, I am told that the various Galapagos finches will always revert back to the norm when conditions are right. There's no evidence that they will become an entirely different animal.

[erik]

Nov 23, 2009 18:56:01 GMT -8 rbbailey said:

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, “I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”

I don't believe this passage is about Satan. I think it is about just who it says it is about, the king of Babylon. Later in the passage, it calls him a man, a dead one, whose grave will be violated. Satan is not a man, nor dead, nor ever in a grave.

This is poetic language addressing a king. It is extremely similar to many other passages discussing other kings (who also are not Satan).

I'm sorry to say but I think this is just another of those Traditions that we all were taught but have no real basis.

Erik

[erik]

Nov 21, 2009 16:19:55 GMT -8 Josh said:

But normally a new species is defined by the inability to breed with another. That's usually the demarkation line that creationists use to differentiate between micro and macro evolution, right?

I believe that bacteria do cross that line*, though they don't "breed" in the traditional sense, of course.

*unless I'm mistaken

People who are ignorant of genetics may often claim that it is the ability to breed that is the dividing line between micro- and macro-evolution. But I don't think that's the line. A horse and a donkey can mate, and they're two different species. I have no problem with the idea that a single species could individuate so much that their remote ancestors could no longer interbreed, and thus be officially labeled by some self-congratulating human organization as "two different species." But that's not macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution can be stated to have occurred when an organism acquires a new level of ability or structure that its built-in informational organization system could not code for.

Let's say I write a recombinant computer program, with a certain basic operation. If I go set it loose and it eventually comes back to me very different from before, even having new "abilities" (say, a resistance to a particular antibiotic that it previously was susceptible to), but when I examine it I see it's still running the same hardware and the instruction set on the processor is the same, then it's not new. It hasn't evolved. It's my program doing what it was designed to do. Changing, for sure. Macro-evolving, no.

When a bacteria acquires never-before-existing cellular machinery, perhaps that would be a good example of macro-evolution. Perhaps bacteria not only operating in colonies but actually differentiating to become a multi-celled organism. Perhaps acquiring a new, complex locomotion apparatus using wheels or electricity or reaction mass. Something actually NEW that isn't just a side-effect of scrambling DNA around (the underlying system I'm talking about).

How about 6-acid DNA instead of 4-acid DNA? Instead of the boring adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine (forgive me if I'm listing RNA here instead of DNA), why not more? Where did the quaternary system come from in the first place? Why not binary like computers, or octenary or something else, for that matter?

Look at dogs--their variety can all be explained by distortion or degeneration of a basic program. Floppy ears = loss of cartilage. Flat faces = deformation of facial bones. Oversize, undersize, short legs, spots, too much hair, too little hair, all variations of the same thing.

Now, dogs that can meow! Hermaphroditic dogs. Dogs with wings. Dogs with six functionally useful legs that are healthy and reproduce. Dogs with feathers. Dogs with venom. Dogs that lay eggs. Dogs with a beak. Dogs with feet oriented for walking upright like human feet. Dogs with scales, gills, claws that retract, talons, something, *anything* actually new that wasn't possible by a simple mixing or degradation or bacterial exchange of DNA.

That would be macro-evolution.

And if all animals are the product of macro-evolution, where are the animals in between all the obvious different structures? Even if it takes millions and millions and millions of years for things to evolve, why isn't there something that shows evidence of being partway through a transition? Or is there something I'm missing? Take some creature. It starts to evolve, but some members of the species don't. As the creature gets on its way toward having a new ability (say wings and feathers) shouldn't it leave some "dots on the map"? Isn't every step on the way in evolution one that provides some evolutionary advantage, meaning that the form was stable and useful enough to be selected for? So where did all those halfway creatures go and why are there none now?

Even just 2,000 years should show some kind of macro-evolutionistic genetic drift in some species somewhere that we can observe.

[Josh]

People who are ignorant of genetics may often claim that it is the ability to breed that is the dividing line between micro- and macro-evolution. But I don't think that's the line. A horse and a donkey can mate, and they're two different species. I have no problem with the idea that a single species could individuate so much that their remote ancestors could no longer interbreed, and thus be officially labeled by some self-congratulating human organization as "two different species." But that's not macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution can be stated to have occurred when an organism acquires a new level of ability or structure that its built-in informational organization system could not code for.

You know, it's interesting you bring this up because this came up when I was reading about the new evidence of neanderthal dna in humans. So, you're right that interbreeding isn't the absolute cirterion for a species.

I hear what you're saying about a comparison between micro and macro evolution, but I guess I don't know enough about bacteria to know whether indeed truly new features can be witnessed to emerge.

And if all animals are the product of macro-evolution, where are the animals in between all the obvious different structures? Even if it takes millions and millions and millions of years for things to evolve, why isn't there something that shows evidence of being partway through a transition? Or is there something I'm missing? Take some creature. It starts to evolve, but some members of the species don't. As the creature gets on its way toward having a new ability (say wings and feathers) shouldn't it leave some "dots on the map"? Isn't every step on the way in evolution one that provides some evolutionary advantage, meaning that the form was stable and useful enough to be selected for? So where did all those halfway creatures go and why are there none now?

Even just 2,000 years should show some kind of macro-evolutionistic genetic drift in some species somewhere that we can observe.

Well, this isn't my perspective, but naturalist evolutionists would respond with 1) the fossil record is incomplete and 2) they would argue that we do see some transitionals in the fossil record (they tend to point especially to horses and whales*)

*which is problematic for their position for other reasons.