Is there an edge to evolution?

[stringmusic]

String I want to narrow your focus down. Keep in mind we are talking about that article, the information it contained and the conclusion that it come up with and you agree with. The entire time I have been arguing the validity of that conclusion based on the information it gave in that article that you agree with.
Before I go any further you have to confirm that you know that and agree with it.

Yes, we are talking about Behe's conclusion on E. coli.

 

[WaltL1]

Yes, we are talking about Behe's conclusion on E. coli.

Ok good. We are doing good String. Now 2 questions -
You said my scenario was unlikely.
1st question -If I could show you in that article that the problem it had was worse than the problem it gave itself by shedding material would you still agree with this conclusion -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"
2nd question - If you showed me in that article where it gives you the results showing the e.coli didn't have any problem or had a lesser problem to begin with could I possibly argue against this -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"

 

[stringmusic]

Ok good. We are doing good String. Now 2 questions -
You said my scenario was unlikely.
1st question -If I could show you in that article that the problem it had was worse than the problem it gave itself by shedding material would you still agree with this conclusion -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"

I would still have to agree with the conclusion because no matter how good it was that it solved it's current problem, there is no bigger problem to solve than stopping the loss of the genetic material that makes up E. coli. We have no evidence that it stops shedding genetic machinery and we have no evidence that it can "rebuild" that machinery.

2nd question - If you showed me in that article where it gives you the results showing the e.coli didn't have any problem or had a lesser problem to begin with could I possibly argue against this -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.

 

[WaltL1]

I would still have to agree with the conclusion because no matter how good it was that it solved it's current problem, there is no bigger problem to solve than stopping the loss of the genetic material that makes up E. coli. We have no evidence that it stops shedding genetic machinery and we have no evidence that it can "rebuild" that machinery.



I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.

Im gonna tug your leash here a little String.
Read my specific questions and for my sake go with yes or no answers. Don't complicate it just go with the flow and answer yes or no based on exactly whats in the 2 questions.

 

[stringmusic]

Ok good. We are doing good String. Now 2 questions -
You said my scenario was unlikely.
1st question -If I could show you in that article that the problem it had was worse than the problem it gave itself by shedding material would you still agree with this conclusion -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"

No, I would no longer agree with the conclusion.

2nd question - If you showed me in that article where it gives you the results showing the e.coli didn't have any problem or had a lesser problem to begin with could I possibly argue against this -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"

The more I read this, it just seems like a rewording of the 1st sentence, so yes, you could argue against that conclusion.

 

[WaltL1]

No, I would no longer agree with the conclusion.


The more I read this, it just seems like a rewording of the 1st sentence, so yes, you could argue against that conclusion.

I agree with you on number one.
number two is similar but very different.
Show me in that article where it states that the e.coli had no problem or a lesser problem before it started shedding material.

 

[stringmusic]

I agree with you on number one.
number two is similar but very different.
Show me in that article where it states that the e.coli had no problem or a lesser problem before it started shedding material.

It had a problem, and it was in a catch 22.

 

[WaltL1]

It had a problem, and it was in a catch 22.

I agree it was a catch 22.
However you have to show me in that article where it tells us that according to their tests the e.coli had no problems or a lesser problem before it started shedding material. Its a critical point to our discussion.

 

[stringmusic]

I agree it was a catch 22.
However you have to show me in that article where it tells us that according to their tests the e.coli had no problems or a lesser problem before it started shedding material. Its a critical point to our discussion.

I'm not going to be able to show you that, because it doesn't say that. I think it makes it pretty obvious that the bateria did have a problem before it start shedding material, otherwise it wouldn't have had to shed it in the first place.

 

[WaltL1]

I'm not going to be able to show you that, because it doesn't say that. I think it makes it pretty obvious that the bateria did have a problem before it start shedding material, otherwise it wouldn't have had to shed it in the first place.

String I absolutely agree with you 100%. It doesn't say what was wrong with it, it obviously had a problem and yes it shed material for a reason.
And heres my entire point,
For you, you yourself, to agree with this to be a logical, factual, accurate finding -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"
Don't you have to know this -
"If the e.coli had no problem or a lesser problem before it started shedding material"?
You must know, you have to know, there is no getting around it. You absolutely can NOT agree that it got worse or broke itself if you don't know what was wrong with it before. But this article, by this author doesn't tell you that, therefore you can not intelligently agree with that conclusion.
Do we agree or disagree?

 

[stringmusic]

String I absolutely agree with you 100%. It doesn't say what was wrong with it, it obviously had a problem and yes it shed material for a reason.
And heres my entire point,
For you, you yourself, to agree with this to be a logical, factual, accurate finding -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"
Don't you have to know this -
"If the e.coli had no problem or a lesser problem before it started shedding material"?
You must know, you have to know, there is no getting around it. You absolutely can NOT agree that it got worse or broke itself if you don't know what was wrong with it before. But this article, by this author doesn't tell you that, therefore you can not intelligently agree with that conclusion.

I absolutely don't have to know that. It matters not what the reason was that it had to throw away chunks of material that makes it what it is. The point is that it did indeed throw away parts it's inherent being which in turn moves it more towards eventual destruction even though it solved a problem it had at the current time.

The same with the guy and the bus. Did I have to know that he had a headache to know that the busting of his head on the concrete and the loss of his arms and legs was moving him towards death, especially knowing that he has to cross the street millions of more times in his lifetime.

 

[WaltL1]

I absolutely don't have to know that. It matters not what the reason was that it had to throw away chunks of material that makes it what it is. The point is that it did indeed throw away parts it's inherent being which in turn moves it more towards eventual destruction even though it solved a problem it had at the current time.

The same with the guy and the bus. Did I have to know that he had a headache to know that the busting of his head on the concrete and the loss of his arms and legs was moving him towards death, especially knowing that he has to cross the street millions of more times in his lifetime.

Even if what it had before would kill it faster than shedding material would kill it, you still don't care? It broke itself? It is an absolute fact that by buying itself time, maybe millions and millions of years, it will not and cannot change in any possible way to fix the problem of shedding genetic material? Its done, Its dead, its broken. Is that what you are saying?

 

[stringmusic]

Even if what it had before would kill it faster than shedding material would kill it, you still don't care?

That's the catch 22 I referenced earlier. It doesn't matter if what if had before is started shedding material, it's still "killing itself" by shedding that material, it's just (possibly) doing is slower.

It broke itself? It is an absolute fact that by buying itself time, maybe millions and millions of years, it will not and cannot change in any possible way to fix the problem of shedding genetic material? Its done, Its dead, its broken. Is that what you are saying?

No, it did not break itself, what happened in the experiment showed that the evolution of E. coli shows that it's in the process of breaking itself without the possibility of regaining it's genetic material. Behe didn't say it was broken, dead or done, and neither did I.

As far as "It is an absolute fact that by buying itself time, maybe millions and millions of years, it will not and cannot change in any possible way to fix the problem of shedding genetic material?" no, I wouldn't call that an absolute fact, and you can even buy into that theory if you'd like, there's just no evidence, based on this experiment, for me to.

 

[stringmusic]

Think of it this way, E. coli has cancer. It discards it's "leg"(genetic machinery) to save energy to fight the cancer and the cancer cannot take over that leg and spread to the rest of it's body, yet it still has cancer. There is zero evidence that the bateria can reproduce that "leg" again, and with it still having cancer, a logical conclusion is that it's going to have to eventually discard it's other "leg" because it will eventually need more energy to fight the cancer. And so on and so forth.

 

[WaltL1]

That's the catch 22 I referenced earlier. It doesn't matter if what if had before is started shedding material, it's still "killing itself" by shedding that material, it's just (possibly) doing is slower.


No, it did not break itself, what happened in the experiment showed that the evolution of E. coli shows that it's in the process of breaking itself without the possibility of regaining it's genetic material. Behe didn't say it was broken, dead or done, and neither did I.

As far as "It is an absolute fact that by buying itself time, maybe millions and millions of years, it will not and cannot change in any possible way to fix the problem of shedding genetic material?" no, I wouldn't call that an absolute fact, and you can even buy into that theory if you'd like, there's just no evidence, based on this experiment, for me to.

1. No advantage to dying slower? None?
2. Did you mean without the possibility of regaining its genetic material or based on what we know today we don't think it can?
3. In this experiment it told you it started casting off genetic material that it wasn't doing before and started saving energy. If changing itself is not enough evidence that it can change itself, exactly what evidence would you need?

 

[stringmusic]

1. No advantage to dying slower? None?

Yes, there is an advantage, it dies slower. It's still dying.

2. Did you mean without the possibility of regaining its genetic material or based on what we know today we don't think it can?

I mean there is no evidence it can.

3. In this experiment it told you it started casting off genetic material that it wasn't doing before and started saving energy. If changing itself is not enough evidence that it can change itself, exactly what evidence would you need?

I have evidence that it can change itself by "killing" itself slower, but I have zero evidence that it can reverse that trend.
I would need actual evidence that it could replace it's genetic material.

 

[WaltL1]

Yes, there is an advantage, it dies slower. It's still dying.

I mean there is no evidence it can.

I have evidence that it can change itself by "killing" itself slower, but I have zero evidence that it can reverse that trend.
I would need actual evidence that it could replace it's genetic material.

Well heres the deal String, we are starting to go round and round again. We were doing great for a while there but we went off the tracks when you said this -

I absolutely don't have to know that. It matters not what the reason was that it had to throw away chunks of material that makes it what it is. The point is that it did indeed throw away parts it's inherent being which in turn moves it more towards eventual destruction even though it solved a problem it had at the current time.

Now here is where our thinking is a mile apart and there is really no reason to keep going -
For me,It absolutely does matter why it started throwing off chunks. If what it had killed it faster than casting off the chunks will, it is UNDENIABLY a positive change. Its whole goal in life is stay alive. If it saved itself from dying sooner by casting off material it is a SUCCESS, a POSITVE change.
Yes you are correct it has a new problem that will kill it if nothing changes. However if it weren't for the SUCCESSFUL, the POSITIVE, change it made by casting off material it wouldn't be alive to try to change itself again and fix its new problem. Now for me no logical argument can be made against that. You can say anything you want but you cant change those facts just as you cant change 1+1 = 2 being a fact. EVEN IF IT CANT CHANGE AND DIES BECAUSE OF IT, CASTING OFF THE MATERIAL WAS A SUCCESS, A POSITIVE BECAUSE IT PROLONGED ITS LIFE.
There is nothing you can say or do to change those facts.
Those facts show that this is a skewed opinion by an intelligent Design advocate on a Apologetc website -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things" COMPLETELY MISLEADING
When in actuality the truth is -
"the lesson to learn from E.coli is that sometimes its necessary for evolution to break things in order to successfully stay alive" UNBIASED REPORT OF THE RESULTS

 

[stringmusic]

Well heres the deal String, we are starting to go round and round again. We were doing great for a while there but we went off the tracks when you said this -

I absolutely don't have to know that. It matters not what the reason was that it had to throw away chunks of material that makes it what it is. The point is that it did indeed throw away parts it's inherent being which in turn moves it more towards eventual destruction even though it solved a problem it had at the current time.

Now here is where our thinking is a mile apart and there is really no reason to keep going -
For me,It absolutely does matter why it started throwing off chunks. If what it had killed it faster than casting off the chunks will, it is UNDENIABLY a positive change. Its whole goal in life is stay alive. If it saved itself from dying sooner by casting off material it is a SUCCESS, a POSITVE change.
Yes you are correct it has a new problem that will kill it if nothing changes. However if it weren't for the SUCCESSFUL, the POSITIVE, change it made by casting off material it wouldn't be alive to try to change itself again and fix its new problem. Now for me no logical argument can be made against that. You can say anything you want but you cant change those facts just as you cant change 1+1 = 2 being a fact. EVEN IF IT CANT CHANGE AND DIES BECAUSE OF IT, CASTING OFF THE MATERIAL WAS A SUCCESS, A POSITIVE BECAUSE IT PROLONGED ITS LIFE.
There is nothing you can say or do to change those facts.

I don't disagree.

Those facts show that this is a skewed opinion by an intelligent Design advocate on a Apologetc website -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things" COMPLETELY MISLEADING
When in actuality the truth is -
"the lesson to learn from E.coli is that sometimes its necessary for evolution to break things in order to successfully stay alive" UNBIASED REPORT OF THE RESULTS

This is where I'll disagree. I think the point was that evolution is better at breaking things rather than the neo-Darwinist theory of everything getting more complex through evolution. Behe didn't word the sentence to your liking and I understand how you could have a problem with that, but I don't see it as misleading.

Behe could have just as easily said your conclusion, and the point still would have been made that evolution of E. coli is a process of breaking, for whatever reason.

Anyway, thanks again for the discussion, I enjoyed it.

 

[WaltL1]

I don't disagree.


This is where I'll disagree. I think the point was that evolution is better at breaking things rather than the neo-Darwinist theory of everything getting more complex through evolution. Behe didn't word the sentence to your liking and I understand how you could have a problem with that, but I don't see it as misleading.

Behe could have just as easily said your conclusion, and the point still would have been made that evolution of E. coli is a process of breaking, for whatever reason.

Anyway, thanks again for the discussion, I enjoyed it.

Not sure how you don't see it as misleading but I will give you one more example to prove it was biased that Im sure you wont accept -
"the lesson to be learned from E. coli is that it's easier for evolution to break things"
Note he said its easier. Do you think he could possibly measure and know the level of difficulty it was for the E.coli to change itself? How much effort it took? Of course not. Therefore he couldn't possibly know how "easy" it was for the E.coli to change. But by saying its easier he is telling you that evolution is weak and takes the easy way out.
Of course he cant prove that and he doesn't actually know that but he knows his readers aren't interested in questioning it because they WANT to believe that too.
If you are really interested in discussing science and evolution, get your articles from a science site.. Not a religious site. Science and evolution aren't their friends if you didn't know

 

[hummdaddy]

so how did humans evolve according to where they lived with the sun with their skin color ,and other characteristics of people around the globe from adam and eve....