• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The creationists are gonna freak!

NobbyNobbs

Gazerbeam's Protege
NobbyNobbs
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
5,617
I stumbled across this today, and would like verification. Specifically, I'm not familiar with New Scientist magazine, and I don't know how reliable a source they are. Would anyone care to comment?
 
That' s a cool article. I don't think it will phase most branches of creationism though. It's the 'beginning' that creationism mostly addresses, and it still allows for later evolutionary processes.
 
NobbyNobbs said:
I stumbled across this today, and would like verification. Specifically, I'm not familiar with New Scientist magazine, and I don't know how reliable a source they are. Would anyone care to comment?
Click to expand...

I could get you the original article tomorrow, if you'd like. Or, at least, read it through and see what it's all about.
 
Its nice to post a link but a couple of words to let me know the subject would be nicer.
 
Hats off to Lenski for setting up such a long-term experiment twenty years ago, which now appears to be bearing fruit. 44.000 generations, trillions of organisms, that's the sort of scale needed to reveal evolution in action. This could be big.

I've seen people argue that beneficial mutations are impossible because "information cannot be created"; this result refutes their logic and/or arithmetic entirely. Boo-yah!
 
Pfah! It's just "micro" evolution... plus, Darwinists are liars... plus, the scientific establishment are Nazis... plus, physicists say the speed of light changes anyway, so why not 6000 years ago... plus, why do you hate America... ergo nothing in this study refutes Creation, as laid out in the Word by Him, in any way.

Plus a bunch of latin I learned at diploma-mill school:

ipso facto e puribus unum ad hominem ergo again morituri te salutant lookit me do philosophy ad nauseam...
 
OMG! They've invented a strain of E. coli that can metabolise citrate! We're all doomed!

Seriously though, creationists will just say "it's only another sort of bacterium". Same kind, right?
 
My question still stands....is this legit? Is this a reputable magazine? Do we finally have laboratory experiments we can point to and say "See? Told ya so!" ?
 
Don't we have poster on here that hates "New Scientist" with a vengeance?
 
Mojo said:
OMG! They've invented a strain of E. coli that can metabolise citrate! We're all doomed!

Seriously though, creationists will just say "it's only another sort of bacterium". Same kind, right?
Click to expand...
They can say it, but then they are ignorant about a lot of scientific facts.

It's being debated whether this represents a new species. Not only does it do something other e-coli do not, it also lost a characteristic, all other e-coli all have.

I'll have to review the article to give you the specifics.
 
I can't imagine this will freak them out any more than everything else does.

Rational Person: Here is a large stack of scientific evidence that clearly shows your assertion the world is only 6000 years old is mistaken.

Creationist: I'm being persecuted! You hate Christians! It's a conspiracy!

RP: I think that only science should be taught in science classes. Religious and other values should be passed on at home in the family.

C: I'm being persecuted! You hate Christians! It's a conspiracy!

RP: Evolution has actually been observed in the laboratory.

C: I'm being persecuted! You hate Christians! It's a conspiracy.

No need to even change the script to handle this new information :D
 
To most creationists, this will just be another example of "micro-evolution", I am sure. Not that such a distinction is real, but that seems to be how they dismiss all of these examples that crop up, every now and then.

Travis said:
Don't we have poster on here that hates "New Scientist" with a vengeance?
Click to expand...
Well, It wouldn't be me, yet. I have only recently discovered how hideous New Scientist can be, sometimes. Give me more time to allow my hatred of the magazine to blossom.
 
Found the whole article in a pdf file.

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

And here's Behe's comments from his blog.
I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. “If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect — if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state — then there is already a big evolutionary problem.” (4) And what if more than two are needed? The task quickly gets out of reach of random mutation.
Click to expand...
Here's your answer about what the Creationists will say. Ha! Talk about being unable to face the fact you have been wrong in a big way.

Behe is saying that the observation of a rare sequence of mutations occurring (needing to occur for species evolution), proves it can't happen. What an idiot.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
Found the whole article in a pdf file.

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

And here's Behe's comments from his blog.Here's your answer about what the Creationists will say. Ha! Talk about being unable to face the fact you have been wrong in a big way.

Behe is saying that the observation of a rare sequence of mutations occurring (needing to occur for species evolution), proves it can't happen. What an idiot.
Click to expand...

Hahaha...
 
Jimbo07 said:
Pfah! It's just "micro" evolution... plus, Darwinists are liars... plus, the scientific establishment are Nazis... plus, physicists say the speed of light changes anyway, so why not 6000 years ago... plus, why do you hate America... ergo nothing in this study refutes Creation, as laid out in the Word by Him, in any way.

Plus a bunch of latin I learned at diploma-mill school:

ipso facto e puribus unum ad hominem ergo again morituri te salutant lookit me do philosophy ad nauseam...
Click to expand...

Are you sure that wasn't from Mel Brooks?
 
Travis said:
Don't we have poster on here that hates "New Scientist" with a vengeance?
Click to expand...

Yes, I was about to cite Zosima; he has an avatar with a parody cover showing "Old Scientist". However, the point is more to whether the researchers are competent and can be trusted, IMO. I have no reason to believe they may not be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom