If your assumptions were true, you would be correct. But evolutionists here (and even those connected with the study) absolutely correlated this e coli study to 'speciation!' and 'Proof of evolution!' From the peer review discussion, about the study: Lenski criticizes Van Hofwegen et al.'s description of the initial evolution of Cit+ as a "speciation event".. Some believed this to be a speciation event, aka macro evolution. But the reasoning and the evidence does not compel that conclusion. It is only an opinion. Why are people using this study as 'proof!', if all they mean is normal variability? We all agree on micro evolution, but it does not compel a conclusion of macro. It would not even come up. But the fact that it has, in almost every UCD thread, shows that the believers in UCD consider it to be evidence. If you don't, fine. We have no disagreement here. I am rebutting the claim that this study on e coli is evidence of universal common descent .
If anyone is interested, here is the study and spinoffs. http://ec.asm.org/content/4/6/1102.full http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf
It's absolutely hilarious that you would point to an argument that clearly states EVOLUTION as the fundamental basis. So, which is it, Fan? Is your argument garbage? Or, is evolution a theory so well accepted that it forms the very basis for such science as you cite?
I think you missed the point. The appendix is not conclusively a vestigial organ, as you claimed. It is NOT evidence for UCD. It has a plausible biological function that we are becoming aware of. Old assumptions and assertions of 'vestigiality!' give way to more compete understanding of our biology. ..evidently not enough to lay aside the old 'proofs!', which are clung to with religious loyalty..
And this is the "rational debate" this fraud treats everyone else to....when he is not whining about people and putting them on ignore, that is...
He's just another in a long line of anonymous self-professed armchair philosophers thinking they’ve successfully refuted the ToE.
If all you have is ad hom.. might as well join your cronies on ignore.. pretty soon i won't see any responses! ..makes for a boring debate, but much easier on my dainty sensibilities.. Edit: Done! Added to ignore, since all you do is heckle and ridicule, anyway.. you can snark away to your heart's content, now, and I don't have to see it!
Microevolution and macroevolution are not competing explanations of the history of life any more than astronomy and physics compete for the correct explanation of the history of the known universe.Debates within the scientific community are about specific mechanisms within evolution, not whether evolution occurred. Going by past form I strongly suspect you will resort to your usual prejudiced put-downs which only serve to reveal that when it comes to the hard facts and evidence of microbiology and genetics you are in want of knowledge and understanding.
Sorry, but repeated disruption, heckling, and unscientific replies have forced me to do this, for my own sanity, and to try to keep some rational structure in the thread. Let me know if any of you want to try again.
Your cite pointed to the appendix being an evolutionary adaptation. And, the point about it's current use is generally considered a more recent adaptation, and that the evolution of the appendix is associated with digestion of cellulose. While your arguments don't hold up, I am sincerely impressed by how often you manage to work your religion memes into discussions of science!
You haven't answered to the observation that there are two "birth defects" either side of the bilateral line that look identical to each other and are located in exactly the same position of the body of a lizard that has legs.
of course, that poster has presented plenty of arguments and evidence. You have dismissed all of it without a single counterargument or evidence of your own. Fraud.
I have yet to notice any difference between being on ignore and not being on ignore, when it comes to that fraud.
We all descended from the trees at one time or another. The bigger the mammal the longer ago it descended, because it is on the ground (an in the oceans) that mammals have grown the largest. The whales and bears descended first. They are the biggest. Bears and humans all still have roughly the same kind of teeth. Bears and humans also learned to stand on their hind legs -- called plantigrade. That way you can see more and smell better. The really big cats descended next. These are called Pantheridae. We still have roughly the same kind of teeth. These teeth are called canines but they are really felines. The hyenas and wolves descended next. Same kind of teeth, again. Called canine but really feline. Apes and humans descended next. Same kind of teeth -- feline. The small cats and the monkeys remained in the trees where it is safe. Also same kind of feline teeth. They have not changed much from their original size -- about that of a modern house cat. This size is ideal for living in trees. Common descent is noted from the teeth of these mammals. Rodents are totally different. They stayed on the ground. Their teeth are totally different -- for gnawing not for killing like ours.
From your own quote the single researcher who claimed it was a speciation event was quickly corrected by Lenski so there doesn't appear to be much misinterpretation in the scientific community. If some people on the internet misinterpret the study, then thats not surprising at all since science is misinterpreted literally all the time. Now if all you do is try to refute every possible misinterpretation of science then you will be here all day refuting everyone's misunderstanding. And if you do this then you haven't actually refuted any real arguments for evolution by actual informed scientists. Instead of refuting a few people in the internet misinterpreting the study as a speciation event, why not actually refute the research as evidence for evolution? If you only refute the speciation claim then this information is going to be relevant to the small number of uninformed people who made the mistake and everyone else is going to be very confused what you are even talking about. Most evolutionists use the Lenski experiment as evidence of the evolution of new features by natural selection and mutation and you should have refuted that claim in the OP. Do you agree?
You should read the study, and the associated analyses concerning it. There have been a few, and 'proof of evolution!' is a constant theme. I have read this study with a critical eye, as well as some of the peer reviews ABOUT the study, and the conclusions drawn. It is plain that many involved in the study, consequent analyses, and peer comments that this study has been controversial in the conclusions drawn. That is not the fault of the data, but reveals the ambition of man, and the dangers of trying to force conclusions based on the desired outcome. My only point about this study, is that is NOT proof of UCD, as many believe. If you see the scope of the study, and what it implies, and can see that it does not support UCD, then you are more analytical than most on this forum., and we have no disagreement.
Ah, Will. You'll have to do better than that! You get a little snarky, sometimes, but aren't mean and hateful like some of your cronies. And while you don't follow my reasoning sometimes, you don't do the ad hom and heckling like the others. Now I'm sure you can't let a mild compliment from me pass without indignation from the peanut gallery, so you will be forced to up your game, to remain part of the Group. ..can't have them believing you can actually think for yourself, instead of keeping solidarity with your groupthink loyalists...
I thought I had just set you straight on the study. This study was never meant by its actual authors to be evidence of common descent or speciation. It was meant as evidence for mutations and natural selection evolving complex abilities and thats it. If you look at evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, TalkOrigins, RationalWiki, EvoWiki, etc, they don't try to prove speciation, they only try to show complex abilities evolving. If you have read their study so well then why do you keep misunderstanding the purpose of the study and how evolutionists use it? Are you reading my posts? I get the feeling you aren't because I have repeated this in literally every post.
Ad hominem attacks? Distortions? Phony caricatures? Where did you see that in my post? All I did was offer a piece of advice.
Some rational structure to the psuedo scientific bullshit you've been attempting to peddle in this thread, seems to be a herculean task since so many others view your opinion as equivalent of those of flat earthers and holocaust deniers. But I suppose a rational structure might include deflection, cherry picking, misrepresentation, bullshit and outright rejection of facts. Its just that including such elements guarantees no intellectual evaluation on merit of any of the arguments proffered. But hey, chacun son gout.
I especially like this paragraph: "She found that the appendix evolved independently in different genetic 'trees,' more than 30 separate times. Furthermore, the appendix almost never disappeared from a lineage once it appeared. This suggests that the organ remains for a reason, she says—an adaptive purpose." Hmm... I'm not a scientist but that sure sounds like evolution to me.
