Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Just when you thought it couldn't get any "better" ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Just when you thought it couldn't get any "better" ...

    I came across this today:


    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/27/1419241112


    "Sulfur-cycling fossil bacteria from the 1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation provide promising evidence of evolution's null hypothesis"

    Significance :An ancient deep-sea mud-inhabiting 1,800-million-year-old sulfur-cycling microbial community from Western Australia is essentially identical both to a fossil community 500 million years older and to modern microbial biotas discovered off the coast of South America in 2007. The fossils are interpreted to document the impact of the mid-Precambrian increase of atmospheric oxygen, a world-changing event that altered the history of life. Although the apparent 2-billion-year-long stasis of such sulfur-cycling ecosystems is consistent with the null hypothesis required of Darwinian evolution—if there is no change in the physical-biological environment of a well-adapted ecosystem, its biotic components should similarly remain unchanged—additional evidence will be needed to establish this aspect of evolutionary theory.

    Abstract: The recent discovery of a deep-water sulfur-cycling microbial biota in the ∼2.3-Ga Western Australian Turee Creek Group opened a new window to life's early history. We now report a second such subseafloor-inhabiting community from the Western Australian ∼1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation. Permineralized in cherts formed during and soon after the 2.4- to 2.2-Ga “Great Oxidation Event,” these two biotas may evidence an opportunistic response to the mid-Precambrian increase of environmental oxygen that resulted in increased production of metabolically useable sulfate and nitrate. The marked similarity of microbial morphology, habitat, and organization of these fossil communities to their modern counterparts documents exceptionally slow (hypobradytelic) change that, if paralleled by their molecular biology, would evidence extreme evolutionary stasis.

    Edited by Thomas N. Taylor, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, and approved January 5, 2015 (received for review October 6, 2014)


    A friend of mine made the following appropriate comment:

    "Ahem. The "the null hypothesis required of Darwinian evolution”? That would mean that no evolution for 1.8 billion years is not only consistent with Darwinism but actually demanded of it. In other words, the proof of evolutionary theory is the fact that no evolution might occur for 1.8 billion years. Or, to put it into clearer words, the refutation of a theory is its proof.

    With thinking like this we have abandoned not only science but also logic."



    IOW, if organisms Evolve over 2 billion years, then that is evidence of Evolution. If organisms remain the same over 2 billion years, then that ALSO "provides promising evidence" of Evolution. The part about the environment remaining unchanged is nothing more than unadulterated BS of the lowest order.

    Yup, boys and girls, that is how "science" works. Ya got it?
    Now go home and study ... there will be a quiz tomorrow.


    Jorge

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    [SIZE=3] If organisms remain the same over 2 billion years, then that ALSO "provides promising evidence" of Evolution. The part about the environment remaining unchanged is nothing more than unadulterated BS of the lowest order.

    Jorge
    I don't get it, are these organisms that remain the same over all this time experiencing a normal rate of mutations?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      A friend of mine made the following appropriate comment:

      "Ahem. The "the null hypothesis required of Darwinian evolution”? That would mean that no evolution for 1.8 billion years is not only consistent with Darwinism but actually demanded of it. In other words, the proof of evolutionary theory is the fact that no evolution might occur for 1.8 billion years. Or, to put it into clearer words, the refutation of a theory is its proof.

      With thinking like this we have abandoned not only science but also logic."
      That's only "appropriate" if you suffer from massive reading comprehension issues. The key phrase in the document you're quoting is "if there is no change in the physical-biological environment of a well-adapted ecosystem". In other words, if you have an organism that is adapted to a static environment, then there's no selective pressure for any further adaptations.

      It's your friend who has the logic issue.
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        In other words, if you have an organism that is adapted to a static environment, then there's no selective pressure for any further adaptations.

        It's your friend who has the logic issue.
        Well isn't the DNA still mutating? How can that not cause change?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Well isn't the DNA still mutating? How can that not cause change?
          We don't have DNA from the 1.8 billion year old sample, obviously, so we can't say - all we can say is that the preserved ecosystem looks similar to present day ones. But genetic drift definitely happens for things not under selection.

          There's also the question of how much you can infer from basic appearance and chemistry. Modern day tuataras look much like the ones from 200 million years ago, but are (on the DNA level) very different:
          http://www.nature.com/news/2008/0803....2008.695.html
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            We don't have DNA from the 1.8 billion year old sample, obviously, so we can't say - all we can say is that the preserved ecosystem looks similar to present day ones. But genetic drift definitely happens for things not under selection.

            According to the link:

            if there is no change in the physical-biological environment of a well-adapted ecosystem, its biotic components should similarly remain unchanged—additional evidence will be needed to establish this aspect of evolutionary theory.

            It would seem that over two billion years that these organisms would have experienced millions of mutations, and experienced real, noticeable, physical change. Even if they are well adapted these organisms could be just as well adapted with different body forms.

            And it would also seem strange that there have been biological environments that did not change over two billion years. Does that sound right to you?
            Last edited by seer; 02-04-2015, 12:59 PM.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              According to the link:

              if there is no change in the physical-biological environment of a well-adapted ecosystem, its biotic components should similarly remain unchanged—additional evidence will be needed to establish this aspect of evolutionary theory.

              It would seem that over two billion years that these organisms would have experienced millions of mutations, and experienced real, noticeable, physical change. Even if they are well adapted these organisms could be just as well adapted with different body forms.
              Perhaps so. But how is a significantly different body form going to arise by small incremental changes when the organism is so well adapted that almost any incremental change is detrimental?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JonF View Post
                Perhaps so. But how is a significantly different body form going to arise by small incremental changes when the organism is so well adapted that almost any incremental change is detrimental?
                But I guess you could say that about any creature. We for instance seem rather well adapted so does that prevent us from from experiencing incremental change? Do mutations stop just because we are well adapted? And the other strange thing is that they claimed that these microbes live in an environment that did not change for two billion years - is that kind of niche even possible on this earth? Where?
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium.

                  The genome tends to be stabilized under stable environmental conditions. Mutations (which as seer is correct happen all the time) can be beneficial, neutral, or deleterious. Deleterious get eliminated by natural selection, which tend to stabilize the gene pool.

                  Not too difficult to understand is it, Jorge and Seer?

                  K54

                  P.S. Do either of you know anything about evolution?
                  Last edited by klaus54; 02-04-2015, 02:20 PM. Reason: ps

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Well isn't the DNA still mutating? How can that not cause change?
                    Thank you, Seer, for pointing out to these people what should be obvious.

                    Besides that, they seem to miss the fact that it's "Heads, they win ... tails, we lose."
                    IOW, Evolution gets the nod under ANY scenario. "Science" at its bleakest!

                    Give it up ... you're trying to get Invincible Ignorance to see the light.

                    Jorge
                    Last edited by Jorge; 02-04-2015, 03:15 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                      Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium.

                      The genome tends to be stabilized under stable environmental conditions. Mutations (which as seer is correct happen all the time) can be beneficial, neutral, or deleterious. Deleterious get eliminated by natural selection, which tend to stabilize the gene pool.

                      Not too difficult to understand is it, Jorge and Seer?
                      "Steven-Weinberg Equilibrium"... yeah, all it takes is attaching the name
                      of high-ranking "scientists" and certain people will believe anything.



                      P.S. Do either of you know anything about evolution?
                      But of course ... it wouldn't be complete without the infamous, "YOU don't
                      understand Evolution but WE do. How do we know that? Easy! Because
                      we AGREE with Evolution and you don't, that's how we know for sure."

                      Predictable and boring as always, Santa Klaus!

                      Jorge

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        Thank you, Seer, for pointing out to these people what should be obvious.

                        Besides that, they seem to miss the fact that it's "Heads, they win ... tails, we lose."
                        IOW, Evolution gets the nod under ANY scenario. "Science" at its bleakest!

                        Give it up ... you're trying to get Invincible Ignorance to see the light.

                        Jorge

                        What I also find strange is the idea that these microbes lived in an environment that did not change for two billion years. I mean if I'm not mistaken this would have been the time line (according to "accepted" science) when the continents were forming. It is hard to imagine any ecosystem remaining stable during those events.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          What I also find strange is the idea that these microbes lived in an environment that did not change for two billion years. I mean if I'm not mistaken this would have been the time line (according to "accepted" science) when the continents were forming. It is hard to imagine any ecosystem remaining stable during those events.
                          Because others are addressing your genetics question, I'll only address your geological one.

                          Even if the continents were massively changing, this does not mean that:-

                          1) deeper in the earth, things were likewise massively changing, and/or that

                          2) on the surface a suitable environment was never to be found at some stage. A suitable environment for these organism could always be there, it's just that its position on the earth changed over time.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            "Steven-Weinberg Equilibrium"...
                            What klaus54 actually wrote was:-

                            "Hardy-Weinberg"

                            If you open the link Jorge, you will see that, unlike you, those two actually did some real science and worked something out.

                            Presuming their principle remains relevant then klaus54 had every reason to mention them.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                              Because others are addressing your genetics question, I'll only address your geological one.

                              Even if the continents were massively changing, this does not mean that:-

                              1) deeper in the earth, things were likewise massively changing, and/or that
                              I would assume that if continents are forming that would effect just about everything, deep in the oceans and earth.

                              2) on the surface a suitable environment was never to be found at some stage. A suitable environment for these organism could always be there, it's just that its position on the earth changed over time.
                              It still seem that they were not mutating for all that time. No matter where they lived.
                              Last edited by seer; 02-04-2015, 04:18 PM.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              3 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              4 responses
                              38 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              58 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              30 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X