Huntsman: Earth not flat; Christie: Sun does not revolve around Earth

[TJ in Oregon]

Oh, that's also an important point: the distinction between public perception of macroevolution and microevolution. I'd doubt pretty much anyone would even bother disputing microevolution unless they really haven't thought about it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Bacteria on the other hand have a generation time of a few hours or less, which makes the study of evolution possible. Always remember, evolution takes a long, long time to occur.

so, after however many years they've been studying bacteria, they would have seen how many millions of generations of bacteria?  and after those millions of generations, aren't the bacteria still just that:  bacteria?

[afleitch]

so, after however many years they've been studying bacteria, they would have seen how many millions of generations of bacteria?  and after those millions of generations, aren't the bacteria still just that:  bacteria?

Bacteria, as evidenced through their presense in or on just about everything and everywhere are masters of their own little niche; there's little need for them to evolve beyond a biological specification that works best for them.

Same with sharks or any other animal that has had little evolution over the past few hundred million years.

[Sbane]

Bacteria on the other hand have a generation time of a few hours or less, which makes the study of evolution possible. Always remember, evolution takes a long, long time to occur.

so, after however many years they've been studying bacteria, they would have seen how many millions of generations of bacteria?  and after those millions of generations, aren't the bacteria still just that:  bacteria?

Dude you sound like a dumbass. I recommend you stop now.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

so, after however many years they've been studying bacteria, they would have seen how many millions of generations of bacteria?  and after those millions of generations, aren't the bacteria still just that:  bacteria?

Dude you sound like a dumbass. I recommend you stop now.

no, I recommend you understand what the argument is about (vertical evolution) instead of what it is not about

[Sbane]

so, after however many years they've been studying bacteria, they would have seen how many millions of generations of bacteria?  and after those millions of generations, aren't the bacteria still just that:  bacteria?

Dude you sound like a dumbass. I recommend you stop now.

no, I recommend you understand what the argument is about (vertical evolution) instead of what it is not about

So your argument is that species just evolve to a certain degree and that's it?

You see, Mr. Science, species evolve to occupy a certain niche. What we tend to observe is that bacteria are filling the niche created by the overuse of antibiotics. A bacteria that can find a way to be resistant to that is going to have a wonderful time in our hospitals. Why would it want to become something else?

Are you one of those who thinks the more cells a species has, the more special it is?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So your argument is that species just evolve to a certain degree and that's it?

what I am saying is that if you take a bacterium and bastardize the heck out of it over 100 million generations, it's offspring are still going to be nothing more than a bunch of single-celled bacteria bastards.  It aint gonna become multi-celled, much less sprout arms and legs.  Now, once in a while one of those bastards might be paled skinned and red haired, but that doesnt mean it aint also a bastard...heck we gots one of those right here on the forum.

[TJ in Oregon]

For me evolution is "proved" by what we see in Bacteria. Now most people not in the sciences might discount that, or just not care about it, but Bacteria are the best organism out there to study whether evolution occurs or not. And the evidence is just piling up that yes, evolution does occur. Human evolution, or the evolution of dinosaurs is much harder to study, and is unnecessary to understand how evolution works. We can't really study human evolution (or evolution in most mammals) that well due to the large generation times. Bacteria on the other hand have a generation time of a few hours or less, which makes the study of evolution possible. Always remember, evolution takes a long, long time to occur.

That's not entirely true. Observing bacteria evolving proves only that bacteria evolve. It does not prove that humans evolved from another organism, or that anything other than bacteria have evolved. It does, however, support the theory. The existence of one type of evolution does not prove all have occurred.

[Sbane]

So your argument is that species just evolve to a certain degree and that's it?

what I am saying is that if you take a bacterium and bastardize the heck out of it over 100 million generations, it's offspring are still going to be nothing more than a bunch of single-celled bacteria bastards.  It aint gonna become multi-celled, much less sprout arms and legs.  Now, once in a while one of those bastards might be paled skinned and red haired, but that doesnt mean it aint also a bastard...heck we gots one of those right here on the forum.

It depends on whether we can give it a niche where it would be better of having more than one cell. Again, why do you think it is better to have more then one cell?

[Sbane]

For me evolution is "proved" by what we see in Bacteria. Now most people not in the sciences might discount that, or just not care about it, but Bacteria are the best organism out there to study whether evolution occurs or not. And the evidence is just piling up that yes, evolution does occur. Human evolution, or the evolution of dinosaurs is much harder to study, and is unnecessary to understand how evolution works. We can't really study human evolution (or evolution in most mammals) that well due to the large generation times. Bacteria on the other hand have a generation time of a few hours or less, which makes the study of evolution possible. Always remember, evolution takes a long, long time to occur.

That's not entirely true. Observing bacteria evolving proves only that bacteria evolve. It does not prove that humans evolved from another organism, or that anything other than bacteria have evolved. It does, however, support the theory. The existence of one type of evolution does not prove all have occurred.

It does prove that species do change to adapt to their environment, over time. That's what evolution is all about.

I hope you don't think the earth is 6,000 years old, because that is ridiculous. On the other hand if you would like to think that god's way of creating change on earth is evolution, then go for it! Evolution isn't anti-god or anti-christianity or any of that crap. It is what it is. If it contradicts the "revelation" by some dude in the desert that the earth is 6,000 years old..oh well. Remember that most scientists and biologists are religious. Perhaps they just don't take everything literally.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So your argument is that species just evolve to a certain degree and that's it?

what I am saying is that if you take a bacterium and bastardize the heck out of it over 100 million generations, it's offspring are still going to be nothing more than a bunch of single-celled bacteria bastards.  It aint gonna become multi-celled, much less sprout arms and legs.  Now, once in a while one of those bastards might be paled skinned and red haired, but that doesnt mean it aint also a bastard...heck we gots one of those right here on the forum.

It depends on whether we can give it a niche where it would be better of having more than one cell. Again, why do you think it is better to have more then one cell?

well, grab a knife and start chopping things off yourself and you'll find out why

[Sbane]

So your argument is that species just evolve to a certain degree and that's it?

what I am saying is that if you take a bacterium and bastardize the heck out of it over 100 million generations, it's offspring are still going to be nothing more than a bunch of single-celled bacteria bastards.  It aint gonna become multi-celled, much less sprout arms and legs.  Now, once in a while one of those bastards might be paled skinned and red haired, but that doesnt mean it aint also a bastard...heck we gots one of those right here on the forum.

It depends on whether we can give it a niche where it would be better of having more than one cell. Again, why do you think it is better to have more then one cell?

well, grab a knife and start chopping things off yourself and you'll find out why

Again, you sound like a retard. I suggest you stop.

[TJ in Oregon]

For me evolution is "proved" by what we see in Bacteria. Now most people not in the sciences might discount that, or just not care about it, but Bacteria are the best organism out there to study whether evolution occurs or not. And the evidence is just piling up that yes, evolution does occur. Human evolution, or the evolution of dinosaurs is much harder to study, and is unnecessary to understand how evolution works. We can't really study human evolution (or evolution in most mammals) that well due to the large generation times. Bacteria on the other hand have a generation time of a few hours or less, which makes the study of evolution possible. Always remember, evolution takes a long, long time to occur.

That's not entirely true. Observing bacteria evolving proves only that bacteria evolve. It does not prove that humans evolved from another organism, or that anything other than bacteria have evolved. It does, however, support the theory. The existence of one type of evolution does not prove all have occurred.

It does prove that species do change to adapt to their environment, over time.

Definitely, but it does not prove which species have changed over time beyond what has been observed. This is a delicate distinction that most in the scientific community will find meaningless but still important because it leaves open the possibility that something else happened, perhaps even something outside the bounds of what is falsificationable. It could even involve a deity of some sort. This isn't science (and anyone who claims it is doesn't understand science) but it's still important because it can affect the way people view the world.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It depends on whether we can give it a niche where it would be better of having more than one cell. Again, why do you think it is better to have more then one cell?

well, grab a knife and start chopping things off yourself and you'll find out why

Again, you sound like a retard. I suggest you stop.

Yeah, you asking "why do you think it is better to have more then one cell?" is just too profound for me to grasp.

[Sbane]

It depends on whether we can give it a niche where it would be better of having more than one cell. Again, why do you think it is better to have more then one cell?

well, grab a knife and start chopping things off yourself and you'll find out why

Again, you sound like a retard. I suggest you stop.

Yeah, you asking "why do you think it is better to have more then one cell?" is just too profound for me to grasp.

Dude, we are multi cellular organisms. We need most of those cells to survive. So if I, or you, went around cutting sh**t off, it might not end so well.

Asking me to cut something off is that same as asking a bacteria to get rid of it's mitochondria or cell wall!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dude, we are multi cellular organisms. We need most of those cells to survive. So if I went around cutting sh**t off, it might not end so well.

but the very end would bring peace

[Sbane]

Dude, we are multi cellular organisms. We need most of those cells to survive. So if I went around cutting sh**t off, it might not end so well.

but the very end would bring peace

That we can agree on.

[ag]

Bacteria on the other hand have a generation time of a few hours or less, which makes the study of evolution possible. Always remember, evolution takes a long, long time to occur.

so, after however many years they've been studying bacteria, they would have seen how many millions of generations of bacteria?  and after those millions of generations, aren't the bacteria still just that:  bacteria?

Wow! You sure show great understanding of biology. I am sincerely hoping, that by the time she is, say, in the fourth of fifth grade, my daughter knows a bit more about it then you do as of today: otherwise , I 'd be forced to find another school for her.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ag, then how many millions of generations are required for vertical evolution?

[Badger]

Just curious, Jim. How old DO you believe the Earth is? Really. No ducking the question, please.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Just curious, Jim. How old DO you believe the Earth is? Really. No ducking the question, please.

probably billions

why?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

What's with the title? It has nothing to do with the articles linked to.

[TJ in Oregon]

What's with the title? It has nothing to do with the articles linked to.

The OP is mocking the Republican Party for not "believing" in science.

[Badger]

Just curious, Jim. How old DO you believe the Earth is? Really. No ducking the question, please.

probably billions

why?

Just curious, where does your apparantly creationist view cross with the Earth being billions of years old?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Just curious, where does your apparantly creationist view cross with the Earth being billions of years old?

on what grounds would my creationist views be in conflict with any age of the earth greater than 6000 years?