Hey, I just wanted to get this out to build a foundation for a more detailed response I plan to post tomorrow or soon after. My earlier reply to you discussed problems with abiogenesis that are applicable to bacterial evolution. I should have made the connection clearer. This 8 minute video packs a lot of information into it relevant to our discussion. Although it does not directly mention Orgel’s Rules, it does show that they are more philosophical than scientific. Timestamps: 00:54 Discussion on mutations 01:58 Michael Behe,Professor of Biochemistry, Lehigh University discusses evolution in real time 02:20 Comments on Richard Lenski’s bacteria experiment observing evolution in real time and discussion of beneficial mutations. 04:00 Dr. Michael Behe: “Darwin’s theory needs to show that organisms can improve by building things and that’s what has been missing in this terrific experiment. 04:10 Narrator: “This famous e coli experiment shows that trillions of random mutations are not capable of building anything new.” 04:38 Discussion of malaria 06:14 Screenshot of quote from Lynn Margulis, biologist and member of the National Academy of Sciences, “I was taught over and over that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change--led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” As an additional thought to the material presented in the video, consider that after many years of exposure to malaria and many opportunities for mutation to provide resistance to the disease, people have not developed resistance, with perhaps one exception--sickle cell anemia seems to reduce the impact of malaria, but at the cost of introducing a new disease which itself can be fatal, just not as fatal.
My main point would be that lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation for some observed phenomenon, is certainly not evidence in favor any alternative non-scientific explanation.
The creationist argument for the bacteria might be it demonstrates bacteria adjust to their environment. But they are still bacteria at the end of the experiment and didn't evolve into another species like this clear proof of evolution:
Thanks, but it was like... no answer at all. You said it! Evolutionary science: "Let’s take a look at the evidence and see what conclusions it leads to." Creationist: "Here’s the conclusion, let’s see what evidence we can claim supports it."
%% You most likely could guess that. Moses book/Genesis + Bible is full of healing. Good question . WHO is a waste also/LOL...……………………………………………………………………..
Ah they are fools of course. Good point. More plates! Or.. https://www.sciencealert.com/scient...ed-algae-evolve-into-a-multicellular-organism The evolution took just 50 weeks, and was triggered by the introduction of a simple predator.
That's simply amazing that the evolution happened so quickly. Does this mean God spends winters in Atlanta and summers in Missoula? Or maybe it's the other way around -- Santa does like the North Pole.
Perhaps. "Name the greatest of all inventors. Accident." Mark Twain "Evolution is a blind giant who rolls a snowball down a hill. The ball is made of flakes-circumstances. They contribute to the mass without knowing it. They adhere without intention, and without foreseeing what is to result. When they see the result they marvel at the monster ball and wonder how the contriving of it came to be originally thought out and planned. Whereas there was no such planning, there was only a law: the ball once started, all the circumstances that happened to lie in its path would help to build it, in spite of themselves." Mark Twain.
%% LOL. That #2 chimp imp looks fake. A teacher in TX did admit he got rid of his monkey/too big diaper bill...………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….