2 Billion Years Unchanged, Bacteria Pose an Evolutionary Puzzle

[tailfins]

Back then people were not as gullible as millions now are. So they did not claim back then that which looked to disprove Evolution as a factor in it being a valid theory.

What they have never explained is how species that were sent towards change by any catalyst thus had millions of years to effect that great change! For in their theory it was about survival and why change if it is so minor that millions(or even hundreds of thousands) of years the species can survive without that change!??

No sir, the logic and reality denies so much of their premise. Faith in the magic of "eons of time" SERVES THAT PURPOSE.- --Tyr

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people will go through to deny God.

[revelarts]

What the scientists basically did was look at two pieces of shit. They were both brown and the same size. Must be the same. If they tested the genetics they'd be different. Of course, you'd be disappointed unless the newer bacteria had a head or something. That is your problem.
I don't understand your point in listing old creatures. They are genetically different even if they look the same. There was little environmental stress, so there will be little change, but still change. Again you somehow seem to think all creatures will turn into something radically different. I still don't believe you've ever picked up a biology book. Not sure what your fear is.
....

Pete, your scrambling for.. something here.

1st you disrespect the evolutionary scientist work and CONTRADICT them. Scientist in the article that say "evolution is fact" not theory.
THEY say the bacteria are the "identical".
You say they "just Look the same"
so you know MORE than the scientist who say there HAS BEEN NO EVOLUTION.
Why are you fighting with the scientist Pete? They made the observation.

"From this deep-sea location, a team of researchers collected fossilized sulfur bacteria that was 1.8 billion years old and compared it to bacteria that lived in the same region 2.3 billion years ago. Both sets of microbes were indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found off the coast of Chile."

But other scientist claim the opposite with you in other situations so, I guess your right inline with them.

This little bacteria had probably 900 millions years to evolve to the state it has been for the past 2.3 billion years. It's as perfect as it needs to be due to limited nutrients, entombed inside rocks, and no change in conditions to affect it further. It already has all it needs.

'Probably had', well that's a convenient assumption. any definite linage to go with that?
Along with all of the other assumptions that go into trying to decide what was going on on earth "2 billion" years ago.

[darin]

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people will go through to deny God.

Even beyond that - Taking religion out of it. The way people get SO CREATIVE in their efforts to deny a designer.

[pete311]

"Hi! I'm Pete and I believe 'mutations' magically happened over time to lead to the life we see today! No, I can't explain how a non-blood cell first 'mutated' into a blood cell - and why it was that cell was beneficial-enough to hang around waiting for ANOTHER cell to magically - oops! I mean...'by random chance' mutate into the cells making up veins...then the blood cell and the vein cell just sorta hung out - maybe divided and created more of themselves - but those things hanging around for millions of years were completely and somehow beneficial-enough until a few other cells "mutated" into heart cells...and so on."

Not knowing exactly how a mechanism works does not falsify it. I drive my car and I can't tell you the first thing about it's engine. The problem here is that you'll always be able to find something that we can't explain 100% yet. When we do fill in that whole, you just move on to the next. We have but merely scratched the surface on explaining the dynamics of gravity, yet you don't question it's mechanism. The only difference here is religion clouding your view and you extremely and understandably limited perspective of time.

Pete. For seemingly a smart dude, your refusal to accept the MOST-Likely causes because of your ideogology mystifies me. It's like you walking out to your driveway and trying to convince your neighbors your car simply evolved into a car after millions of years of all the ingredients floating around the world. It’s a wonder we don't randomly find complete cakes on grocery store shelves.

I follow the scientific method which is by definition a methodology, not ideology. You guys really appear foolish when you mix up definitions. The rest of this is complete rubbish and is not the claim of evolution. I've been over it time and time again. Why is it so hard to believe that mutations in genetics occur. These mutations can be good or bad. Evolution does not have a side. Plenty of failed species. Sometimes these mutations create an advantage. Sometimes these advantages are passed on and proliferate. Environment sometimes influences this process. Simplest example is a mutation in the feathers of a bird makes it more green. It happens to provide it more camouflage against hawks. There is a better chance that bird will survive and pass on it's genetics. 10,000 years later the bird species is mostly green. Why is that so hard to understand. That is basic evolution.

1st you disrespect the evolutionary scientist work and CONTRADICT them. Scientist in the article that say "evolution is fact" not theory.
THEY say the bacteria are the "identical".
You say they "just Look the same"
so you know MORE than the scientist who say there HAS BEEN NO EVOLUTION.
Why are you fighting with the scientist Pete? They made the observation.

"From this deep-sea location, a team of researchers collected fossilized sulfur bacteria that was 1.8 billion years old and compared it to bacteria that lived in the same region 2.3 billion years ago. Both sets of microbes were indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found off the coast of Chile."

But other scientist claim the opposite with you in other situations so, I guess your right inline with them.

The scientist can't make that claim. Use your critical thinking skills. The bacteria is fossilized. The "skeleton" has been turned into stone. There is no material to test genetics which would prove undeniably different even if they visually look the same.

At the end of the article another scientist says it's expected that the bacteria has hardly changed due to little environmental pressure. Again you are looking for big changes, but the mechanisms of evolution don't promise that.

btw, modern evolution theory has progressed far past the days of Darwin's first writings. No modern biologist takes it at it's word. Much of it has been revised and even some proven wrong. This is the power of science.

[darin]

But Pete - you CANNOT follow the scientific method and believe what you claim to buy into. C'mon man. It fails the requirement of falsifiability. Probably at LEAST that requirement. Now that doesn't mean it is worthless - we see micro 'evolution'...and sometimes macro evolutionists get to say 'Uh...it just magically evolved that way - without outside influence!'

It's like saying "Santa brought it!"

Evolution - the way you believe it, and I MUST say I admire the massive-amounts of faith you display believing something so (forgive me) silly - is a noun. Science is a verb. You want to verb your noun. Your Noun is NOT a verb. Evolutionary Theory like you buy into is NOT 'science' because science is an action. A methodology.

[aboutime]

For Pete's sake. Funny stuff. Did trolls exist 2 billion years ago, and just resurface?

[Drummond]

For Pete's sake. Funny stuff. Did trolls exist 2 billion years ago, and just resurface?

Question: can a troll evolve ?

[aboutime]

Question: can a troll evolve ?

Answer: Yes. And we have so many examples of their Evolution, right here on DP. Just start with Gabby, and fj fits right in. Just wondering what Bridges they live under?

[darin]

FJ is NOT a troll. That dude is smart, articulate, and honestly, I hate debating him because he brings a lot to the table.

[pete311]

But Pete - you CANNOT follow the scientific method and believe what you claim to buy into. C'mon man. It fails the requirement of falsifiability. Probably at LEAST that requirement. Now that doesn't mean it is worthless - we see micro 'evolution'...and sometimes macro evolutionists get to say 'Uh...it just magically evolved that way - without outside influence!'

Oh does it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objecti...falsifiability

You just keep spinning the usual tired anti-evolution rhetoric that has been countered a million times over.

Micro and Macro are the same thing just at different time scales.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...e/evoscales_01

[revelarts]

...
btw, modern evolution theory has progressed far past the days of Darwin's first writings. No modern biologist takes it at it's word. Much of it has been revised and even some proven wrong. This is the power of science.

It seems to me MOST of it's foundation has been proven wrong at this point, but many scientist and other secular true believers a loathed to let it die as it should.
It should die like it's grandfather scientific theory "spontaneous generation".

[pete311]

It seems to me MOST of it's foundation has been proven wrong at this point, but many scientist and other secular true believers a loathed to let it die as it should.
It should die like it's grandfather scientific theory "spontaneous generation".

If you truly believe that then the next time you get ill don't visit a hospital because a lot of modern medicine uses evolutionary concepts, especially pharmacology.

[pete311]

btw, even the leader of the Catholic church, Pope Francis does not argue evolution.


“When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything,” he said. “However, it was not like that. He created beings and left them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave each one, so that they would develop, and reach their fullness.”


The creation of the universe, Francis said, was not a singular event, but rather “went forward for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia until it became what we know today.”


http://www.newsweek.com/pope-francis...tholics-281115

You see, there is no conflict with Christianity and evolution.

[revelarts]

If you truly believe that then the next time you get ill don't visit a hospital because a lot of modern medicine uses evolutionary concepts, especially pharmacology.

You mean like how evolution instructed the medical profession to believe in “vestigial” organs, which lead them to cut out tonsils and appendixes willy nilly believing that they were LEFT OVERS from our "evolutionary" ancestors?
thankfully I'll miss out on that evolutionary based medical practice.

And BTW evolution has failed even in it's predictions on how anti-biotic resistance works. it was assumed that viruses or bacteria evolved that is changed-mutated new features- but after regular research it's been found that what often happen is that the strain of bug that's not resistant to the drug dies off and the those are ALREADY resistance proliferate. in cases where there is a real mutation it turn out that what happen is the bug has actually LOSE a function and is therefore less prone to the drug. Like if you were scaring away dogs with a light for weeks but then the dogs came back but they had gouged their eyes out. so now the light is useless. have the dogs evolved? will they make better dogs without. will they grow wings? the point is there's no NEW information. it's a LOSE of Function and genetic information. Or finally it's the turning on or off of a switch that's already IN play in the creature. either way you're not getting a NEW creature just the same bug. like watching a ladybug on the ground then calling it evolution if you watch it fly away. ---praise Darwin it GREW WINGS when we tried to catch it, that's PROOF of evolution.---
the environment changed and the creature used feature it already had. (for maybe 2.3 billion years?) not a real mutation or evolution.

and here's a quote from one dr.

"...I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I've performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That's why most doctors--nearly two-thirds according to national polls--don't believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don't accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life....

...Without using evolutionary theory, doctors and scientists have discovered vaccines (Jenner, in the 18th century, before Darwin was born), discovered that germs cause infectious diseases (Pasteur, in the 19th century, who ignored Darwin), discovered genes (Mendel, in the 19th century, who was a priest and not a supporter of Darwin's theory), discovered antibiotics, and unraveled the secrets of the genetic code (the key to these discoveries was the discovery of the apparent design in the DNA double helix). Heart, liver, and kidney transplants, new treatments for cancer and heart disease, and a host of life-saving advances in medicine have been developed without input from evolutionary biologists. No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology. In fact, I think it's safe to say that the only contribution evolution has made to modern medicine is to take it down the horrific road of eugenics, which brought forced sterilization and bodily harm to many thousands of Americans in the early 1900s. That's a contribution which has brought shame--not advance--to the medical field. ....

Michael Egnor, M.D.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03..._to003300.html

[revelarts]

btw, even the leader of the Catholic church, Pope Francis does not argue evolution.
“When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything,” he said. “However, it was not like that. He created beings and left them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave each one, so that they would develop, and reach their fullness.”

The creation of the universe, Francis said, was not a singular event, but rather “went forward for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia until it became what we know today.”
http://www.newsweek.com/pope-francis...tholics-281115

You see, there is no conflict with Christianity and evolution.

I'm not Catholic.
and sorry, the Pope is just wrong on this one.
He's been bamboozled by the priesthood of the scientific establishment.

and yes, There's conflict with reality and the theory of evolution.
But many Christians still may not get the fact that... as usual... the Bible was right all along.