What is your take on evolution/old age earth?

[lestatdark]

highwaystar101 said:

Slimebeast said:

highwaystar101 said:

Yes science is limited by certain factors, all fields are. But the range of the limitations is what is important, having limitations is not an absolute state.

For some fields we can only merely speculate on what is occurring due to a lack of evidence caused by extreme limitations. Other fields are limited, but not limited to any major degree, so we have enough evidence to come up with a reasonable and logical explanation. Evolution falls under the latter.

Yes we have a lack of fossils the further back through time you go (as in hundreds of millions of years) for various geological reasons, that is a limitation; but that limitation does not hinder the fact that enough evidence has been collected to show that evolution occurs.

Even so, we will work hard to overcome that limitation so that we can better define and understand the concept of evolution.

The answer is not complete, but it's good enough to understand what happens. We just always want a better one.

If I can suggest some reading, Isaac Asimovs The relativity of wrong.

...

Palaeontology goes through an extremely rigorous peer review process with nothing being accepted without hard evidence, and takes years of dedication by millions of people around the world, and has done so for centuries. I don't know why you seem to think that it is guess work with an error rate of 99%.

And I don't "trust" these people, I am occasionally sceptical about claims I hear made, and I certainly don't think they hold all the answers. But I am willing to give them credit for their hard earned expertise.

...

I've said it before Slimebeast, and each time I'm a little worried about offending, and I apologise if I do. But I shall say it again anyway. I think that you have been presented with enough evidence for evolution over this website (and through other sources I imagine), and I know that you're a very bright person and fully understand what you are being presented with, but you find it conflicting with your faith. As such, whenever I debate you I always feel as though you feel as though you are compelled to refuse evolution, regardless of what you are presented with. Your last paragraph pretty much summed this up for me.

About paleonthology. The humanoid tree of evolution is very shaky. The lack of missing links, the reinterpretation of fossils (like the one recently, a sensational bipedal guy is now considered four-pedal) is disturbing.

Dont worry, you dont offend me. As Ive said before, your instinct about me, it has some truth. I have a sceptical default stance yes, due to my religious world view. But I can play around with different scenarios, independent scenarios in my head at the same time. Like say.. the topic of evolution of morals as an example. I can see the logic up to a point (the evolution model, how morals evolved). But if I can sneak a big question mark or some doubt in there, why whouldn I? As long as I can truthfully say to my self that it's relevant and not just a "god of the gaps" cop-out.  You would too if it was a topic you were very sceptical of. Look, even Dawkins admits that the evolution of morals and altruism is very puzzling. So why do we never see those sort sof confessions by the evo-defenders in forum discussions like these? So it goes both ways, the bias and the rigid positions.

Especially in the bacteria example (lack of diversity and complexity). I actually find it laughable how the evo-guys refuse to acknowledge that problem no matter how I try to present it right under their noses. It's dishonest and weak, and proves that they're just as religious as I am. These debates are comedic from my point of view too.

The evolutionists backed away from the bacteria argument you posed? I think lestatdark would beg to differ on that point. Personally I didn't notice it first time round, I just had to search for it; anyway...

"We've gone through some things before, things I have problems with. Like the lack of evolution in bacteria."

Well that wasn't exactly long, easy to skip over. The first thing that pops into my mind is the commonly cited (and I'm sure you've heard of it before) long term evolution experiment on E-coli (it even has its own Wikipedia page it's that commonly cited).

It is an experiment which began in 1988 to monitor the evolution of 12 populations of E-coli. The results proved that all populations evolved, an distinctly from each other. One population even made the (rather major) transition from acidophobe to acidophile in 40,000 generations (about 20 years as I recall?). That's like us evolving to having cyanide as our staple food. The experiment has showed that many mutations occurred, and whilst most were unsuccessful and died out relatively quickly, a few dozen were extremely beneficial and gradually became a prominent mutation throughout the population.

I think this shows that evolution in bacteria is pretty quick. 40,000 generations isn't that many when you take into account the massive evolution that occurred in the e-coli.

In a way this is kind of similar to another commonly cited case that you must come across constantly, and that is MRSA. For a bacteria to become resistant to penicillin is a big evolution. And it has been fairly rapid too because it only took around 50 years of penicillin use to develop a resistance that has allowed it to thrive. I was reading only the other week in New Scientist about how medical researchers are finding it increasingly more and more difficult to develop new ways to combat bacteria, who rapidly evolve to become resistant to treatments.

To be honest, I would say that even if you claim that bacteria evolution is slow, I think I have clearly shown that it does happen and I am certain that it is not as slow as you make it out to be.

I actually met a researcher at my University a few weeks ago who is looking at the evolution in CO2 consuming bacteria (although it was something to do with the way they form colonies, so it may be some sort of social evolution and not biological). I wish I had his number right now either way lol.

You're actually quite right. That long-term evolution experiment with E.Coli strands was achieved using experimentation with the Campbell's recombinant mechanisms that E.Coli have, and which is especially helpful, since their F plasmids has a high rate of conjugation. 

40.000 bacteria generations isn't that much, since E.Coli is one of the bacteria with the most longevity, due to it's primordial reproduction method is sexual pili conjugation, instead of binary division. That allows for events of cross-linking and conjugation similar (in a very small scale, since bacteria only have one chromosome and in some cases multiple plasmids) that animal and plant gametes recombine their genetic material. 

That experience was one of the very first we studied in our class, as it's very important to explain the effect that bacterial recombination through controlled mutagenesis (by controlling the medium in which the bacteria are incubated) has on it's  adaptation to sudden changes to it's physiological stable environment.  

Also, there's the consideration of viral infection, which allows for DNA transformation and transpossonic shifts via movable genomic elements (this is called HGT, and it's also a source for adaptability in eukoryotic cells, especially plants, especially on millet and rice plants, see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer and http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040035)

Vector cloning is also one of the major proofs on how evolution in bacteria has been preponderant to large scale evolution. By using inserction vectors, which can range from phages, plasmids and even full scale chromosomes (in the case of BAC and YAC genomic libraries construction) we can artificially "implant" new functional genes in a bacteria's chromosome (E.Coli is a prime source for Vector Cloning, due to it's F Plasmids working in merozigoty/pseudozygoty with the chromosome, adding more stability and recombination rate in the DNA), thus expressing new proteins in bacteria that originally would never have this protein to begin with.

Thus, this simplifies the ability to comprehend natural recombination for expression of proteins that would allow bacteria to survive in conditions that normally would be fatal to them. Transporting this to large scale generational gaps, one would easily see how bacteria evolved through the millenia. 

About MRSA adaptation of bacteria, this has been very prominent on beta lactamase Gram   bacteria (S.Aureus). Normally, the expression of the pbp1, pbp2, pbp3 and pbp4 genes that code for the PBPA, PBPB, PBPC and PBPD proteins (PBP - Peptidoglycan Binding Protein) would be inhibited on the presence of Penicillin (or it's more potent form, Meticillin) by inhibiting the transpeptidase functional group of the PBP2 (which is the strongest D-Alanyl-alanine cross-linker protein).

These bacteria have become resistant to Penicillin because their genes have begun expressing a new protein, PBP2A. This protein has a low affinity for beta-lactamase antibiotics, thus, in the presence of Penicillin and/or Meticillin, this protein substitutes the function of the native PBP proteins, which are inhibited. 

Such a quick adaptation (as you said, 50 or so years), demonstrates how generations and generations of fortuitous mutations, recombinations and many other synergistic genomic processes have allowed (for some seriously bad consequences, as Penicillin is still used the large-spectrum antibiotic of reference in most countries) the surge of new S.Aureus strands, which will inevitably take over the strands that are sensitive to Penicillin/Meticillin.

These are but a few cases of how bacteria have successfully evolved and adapted through evolution of their own genetic code. I think the evidence speaks for itself in this case.