DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Abaddon_ire]

You'll understand if we don't accept scripture as representative of anything that actually happened... for the most part, at least.


Hmm... you're a new kind I haven't yet encountered...
Explain to me how that works.
Do you accept the 4.3 billion year Earth, but it was created in 6 days, with humans and all animals already in it, pretty much as we see it today?



If kind is a species, then how do you account for the fossil record?
Absence of humans in rock layers older than 2 million years?
Absence of dinosaurs in layers younger than 65 million years and older than 250 million years?
Absence of birds prior to dinosaurs?
Absence of land animals prior to water animals?
Absence of humans prior to apes?
And many other pieces of the puzzle of life on Earth that fit neatly under the model of evolution?


Also, what if I show you how evolution in the lab has resulted in a new species?

Yes, I believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old.  I believe each day that went by for God outside this universe, eons were going by inside of the universe.  Below is a chart of the Day-Age Interpretation of Genesis which I believe in:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

There are no intermediary species though.  Sure water animals came before land animals,..., but that doesn't mean everyone had a common ancestor.  I believe all men and all women had a common ancestor in the first male and female on earth.  Science now shows DNA dates back to a single man and a single woman.  

Sure, I will look at the lab results.

OK now you are flat out lying. Science does not trace DNA back to a single couple at all.

Mitochondrial Eve is the MRCA matrineally. It is not one individual but changes over time.

Y-Chromosomal Adam is the MRCA patrineally. Again it is not one individual but changes over time.

Neither of them could possibly have ever met.

[robvalue]

[pocaracas]

You'll understand if we don't accept scripture as representative of anything that actually happened... for the most part, at least.


Hmm... you're a new kind I haven't yet encountered...
Explain to me how that works.
Do you accept the 4.3 billion year Earth, but it was created in 6 days, with humans and all animals already in it, pretty much as we see it today?



If kind is a species, then how do you account for the fossil record?
Absence of humans in rock layers older than 2 million years?
Absence of dinosaurs in layers younger than 65 million years and older than 250 million years?
Absence of birds prior to dinosaurs?
Absence of land animals prior to water animals?
Absence of humans prior to apes?
And many other pieces of the puzzle of life on Earth that fit neatly under the model of evolution?


Also, what if I show you how evolution in the lab has resulted in a new species?

Yes, I believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old.  I believe each day that went by for God outside this universe, eons were going by inside of the universe.  Below is a chart of the Day-Age Interpretation of Genesis which I believe in:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

There are no intermediary species though.  Sure water animals came before land animals,..., but that doesn't mean everyone had a common ancestor.  I believe all men and all women had a common ancestor in the first male and female on earth.  Science now shows DNA dates back to a single man and a single woman.  

Sure, I will look at the lab results.

Cool!

Here's one simple example with a particular virus:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...152743.htm
""
To conduct their experiment, Meyer, Lenski and their colleagues cultured a virus -- known as "bacteriophage lambda" -- capable of infecting E. coli bacteria using two receptors, molecules on the outside of the cell wall that viruses use to attach themselves and then infect cells.

When the biologists supplied the virus with two types of cells that varied in their receptors, the virus evolved into two new species, one specialized on each receptor type.

"The virus we started the experiment with, the one with the nondiscriminatory appetite, went extinct. During the process of speciation, it was replaced by its more evolved descendants with a more refined palette," explained Meyer.

Why did the new viruses take over?

"The answer is as simple as the old expression, 'a jack of all trades is a master of none'," explained Meyer. "The specialized viruses were much better at infecting through their preferred receptor and blocked their 'jack of all trades' ancestor from infecting cells and reproducing. The survival of the fittest led to the emergence of two new specialized viruses."
""



Now in a particular species of fruit flies, still going, in the wild!
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles...pecies.htm
""
For their study, biologists from Rice University, the University of Notre Dame, Michigan State University, the University of Iowa and the University of Florida closely traced the evolutionary changes in the fruit flies' feeding and mating habits. Currently, Rhagoletis is in the act of evolving into two species as the result of differently timed fruiting cycles among apple trees. By examining the effects of this speciation beyond Rhagoletis, researchers found that three species of parasitic wasps are also affected by the change.

Researchers came to that conclusion after collecting wasps from different fruit fly host plant environments in the wild. In doing so, they found that all three wasp species were also undergoing speciation, or diverging into two new species. When this happens, a species' behavior, physiology and genetics are all altered.

"The new study extends the earlier work by showing that new fruit fly species provide suitable habitat not just for one new parasitoid species, but for multiple new species," James Smith, co-author of the study and an entomologist from Michigan State, said in a statement.

This domino effect may help researchers better understand why certain organisms, such as plants and insects, are more diverse than others.
""


How about some bacteria?
https://medium.com/hhmi-science-media/in...9926b0bb7d
""
Over the course of their experiment, the Lenski team has seen some exciting changes arise. In one extreme example, they observed the evolution of a brand-new trait: the ability to digest a new type of food.

The experiment started with 12 slightly different populations, or strains, of E. coli, that all initially arose from a single cell and all used glucose present in broth as their sole carbon source for energy. The scientists grew these strains in broth that contained only a little glucose, but (for technical reasons) happened to have a lot of citrate. Citrate is similar to glucose, but none of the E. coli strains could metabolize citrate the way they did glucose. In the low-glucose environment, these microbes were starving.

About 31,000 generations later, 11 of 12 strains still relied solely on glucose for energy to reproduce, but one strain developed the ability to eat citrate too. Consequently, these citrate-using bacteria were able to grow much better in the glucose-poor/citrate-rich media than their 11 sibling strains.
"

On the same study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541568/
""
Our results demonstrate substantial evolutionary change in the stoichiometry of E. coli cells over time (figure 1). The average C : P ratio decreased by 14% and the average C : N ratio decreased by 6% during the 50 000-generation experiment. Because the evolved and ancestral bacteria were grown under identical conditions, our measurements reflect only evolved, heritable changes. Previous work has shown that E. coli cells also exhibit a plastic response to variation in nutrient supply, with their C : P ratio decreasing approximately 25% in response to a reduced C : P supply ratio, while the C : N supply ratio was held constant and the C : N ratio in biomass did not change [44]. The time scale of our experiment, while long in comparison to other laboratory experiments, is extremely brief in the context of Earth's history. Overall, our results indicate that evolutionary changes in stoichiometry can occur over a period of years or decades, and these evolved changes can be of similar scope to short-term physiological responses.

As predicted given the carbon-limited medium, we observed significant declines in both the C : N and C : P ratios of the bacterial biomass. However, there was no evidence of direct selection for elemental sparing, because the proportion of carbon (which was the limiting element) in biomass did not change. Rather, the declines in the C : N and C : P ratios resulted from increases in the proportions of both nitrogen and phosphorus in the bacteria. These increases might reflect a relaxation of prior selection for elemental sparing of nitrogen and phosphorus. However, we cannot distinguish the direct effect of selection due to low carbon, high nitrogen and high phosphorus from the indirect effects of selection favouring other traits in the evolution experiment. For example, some portion of the stoichiometric changes that we observed might simply be correlated responses to selection for larger cell size [45], faster growth rate [31] or other traits.

The exceptionally high C : N and C : P ratios of the evolved clone from the citrate-consuming lineage, which had access to approximately 10 times more carbon than any other population [34], provide some evidence that the declines in the C : N and C : P ratios in the other populations were beneficial specifically under the very low C : N and C : P supply ratios of the LTEE. However, the higher relative carbon content of the citrate-consuming clone is not necessarily itself strictly an evolutionary response. Instead, the citrate consumer's higher carbon content might also be, in whole or in part, a plastic physiological response to the higher carbon availability that it experiences as a result of its evolved ability to consume citrate.

Given the carbon-limited conditions of the LTEE, one might reasonably expect that the strongest selection on the bacteria would be to reduce the carbon in their biomass. However, increases in the bacteria's nitrogen and phosphorus content drove the changes in the C : N and C : P ratios, while there was no significant change in the percentage of carbon in the biomass. Taken at face value, this finding suggests that the proportion of carbon in biomass may be less evolutionarily flexible than the proportions of nitrogen and phosphorus. Alternatively, similar absolute changes in carbon content may be more difficult to detect because carbon makes up a much larger portion of the biomass.
""

[ignoramus]

Guys, is it true that they're trying to pass a law stopping YEC's from buying fossil fuels as a matter of principle?

[Joods]

Declares to be an atheist and not to like God either.  OK...

I am an atheist. I believe in no god or gods. The simple fact remains that as described in your holey babble, your god is a nasty piece of work.

And you like it.

He's got some sort of weird fetish. Maybe he should go check out fetlife. 

[Ravenshire]

There seems to be a design fault with this one. It repeats the same debunked nonsense and then declares victory over and over. Does anyone have a customer service number?

1-900-DUMBASS.

I think that'll work for this one.

[Anomalocaris]

Guys, is it true that they're trying to pass a law stopping YEC's from buying fossil fuels as a matter of principle?

Hope so.


I believe there is also a law in the works that would stop micro-evolutionists from eating domesticated corn, wheat and rice, or any products containing these staples.   These staples are new kinds created by the blasphemous hoax of macro-evolution from wild kinds, and therefore must be hoaxes themselves.   So eating them will prevent salvation and result in eternal damnation.

[Nay_Sayer]

You'll understand if we don't accept scripture as representative of anything that actually happened... for the most part, at least.


Hmm... you're a new kind I haven't yet encountered...
Explain to me how that works.
Do you accept the 4.3 billion year Earth, but it was created in 6 days, with humans and all animals already in it, pretty much as we see it today?



If kind is a species, then how do you account for the fossil record?
Absence of humans in rock layers older than 2 million years?
Absence of dinosaurs in layers younger than 65 million years and older than 250 million years?
Absence of birds prior to dinosaurs?
Absence of land animals prior to water animals?
Absence of humans prior to apes?
And many other pieces of the puzzle of life on Earth that fit neatly under the model of evolution?


Also, what if I show you how evolution in the lab has resulted in a new species?

Yes, I believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old.  I believe each day that went by for God outside this universe, eons were going by inside of the universe.  Below is a chart of the Day-Age Interpretation of Genesis which I believe in:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

There are no intermediary species though.  Sure water animals came before land animals,..., but that doesn't mean everyone had a common ancestor.  I believe all men and all women had a common ancestor in the first male and female on earth.  Science now shows DNA dates back to a single man and a single woman.  

Sure, I will look at the lab results.

[CDF47]

No, He's not.  He is just, merciful, trustworthy, and loving.  He has a wrath though and He punishes sin.

He endorses genocide, incest, slavery, human sacrifice and all manner of cruelty and injustice in your magic book.

Have you not read the vile tome?

I read the Bible cover to cover and study it frequently.  The accusations you make are not warranted.  God allows evil to happen but He is not the author of evil, satan is.  You are just a hater of God.

---

Yes, I believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old.  I believe each day that went by for God outside this universe, eons were going by inside of the universe.  Below is a chart of the Day-Age Interpretation of Genesis which I believe in:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

There are no intermediary species though.  Sure water animals came before land animals,..., but that doesn't mean everyone had a common ancestor.  I believe all men and all women had a common ancestor in the first male and female on earth.  Science now shows DNA dates back to a single man and a single woman.  

Sure, I will look at the lab results.

OK now you are flat out lying. Science does not trace DNA back to a single couple at all.

Mitochondrial Eve is the MRCA matrineally. It is not one individual but changes over time.

Y-Chromosomal Adam is the MRCA patrineally. Again it is not one individual but changes over time.

Neither of them could possibly have ever met.

That is not a fact.  They could have met.

---

Yes, I believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old.  I believe each day that went by for God outside this universe, eons were going by inside of the universe.  Below is a chart of the Day-Age Interpretation of Genesis which I believe in:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

There are no intermediary species though.  Sure water animals came before land animals,..., but that doesn't mean everyone had a common ancestor.  I believe all men and all women had a common ancestor in the first male and female on earth.  Science now shows DNA dates back to a single man and a single woman.  

Sure, I will look at the lab results.

Cool!

Here's one simple example with a particular virus:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...152743.htm
""
To conduct their experiment, Meyer, Lenski and their colleagues cultured a virus -- known as "bacteriophage lambda" -- capable of infecting E. coli bacteria using two receptors, molecules on the outside of the cell wall that viruses use to attach themselves and then infect cells.

When the biologists supplied the virus with two types of cells that varied in their receptors, the virus evolved into two new species, one specialized on each receptor type.

"The virus we started the experiment with, the one with the nondiscriminatory appetite, went extinct. During the process of speciation, it was replaced by its more evolved descendants with a more refined palette," explained Meyer.

Why did the new viruses take over?

"The answer is as simple as the old expression, 'a jack of all trades is a master of none'," explained Meyer. "The specialized viruses were much better at infecting through their preferred receptor and blocked their 'jack of all trades' ancestor from infecting cells and reproducing. The survival of the fittest led to the emergence of two new specialized viruses."
""



Now in a particular species of fruit flies, still going, in the wild!
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles...pecies.htm
""
For their study, biologists from Rice University, the University of Notre Dame, Michigan State University, the University of Iowa and the University of Florida closely traced the evolutionary changes in the fruit flies' feeding and mating habits. Currently, Rhagoletis is in the act of evolving into two species as the result of differently timed fruiting cycles among apple trees. By examining the effects of this speciation beyond Rhagoletis, researchers found that three species of parasitic wasps are also affected by the change.

Researchers came to that conclusion after collecting wasps from different fruit fly host plant environments in the wild. In doing so, they found that all three wasp species were also undergoing speciation, or diverging into two new species. When this happens, a species' behavior, physiology and genetics are all altered.

"The new study extends the earlier work by showing that new fruit fly species provide suitable habitat not just for one new parasitoid species, but for multiple new species," James Smith, co-author of the study and an entomologist from Michigan State, said in a statement.  

This domino effect may help researchers better understand why certain organisms, such as plants and insects, are more diverse than others.
""


How about some bacteria?
https://medium.com/hhmi-science-media/in...9926b0bb7d
""
Over the course of their experiment, the Lenski team has seen some exciting changes arise. In one extreme example, they observed the evolution of a brand-new trait: the ability to digest a new type of food.

The experiment started with 12 slightly different populations, or strains, of E. coli, that all initially arose from a single cell and all used glucose present in broth as their sole carbon source for energy. The scientists grew these strains in broth that contained only a little glucose, but (for technical reasons) happened to have a lot of citrate. Citrate is similar to glucose, but none of the E. coli strains could metabolize citrate the way they did glucose. In the low-glucose environment, these microbes were starving.

About 31,000 generations later, 11 of 12 strains still relied solely on glucose for energy to reproduce, but one strain developed the ability to eat citrate too. Consequently, these citrate-using bacteria were able to grow much better in the glucose-poor/citrate-rich media than their 11 sibling strains.
"

On the same study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541568/
""
Our results demonstrate substantial evolutionary change in the stoichiometry of E. coli cells over time (figure 1). The average C : P ratio decreased by 14% and the average C : N ratio decreased by 6% during the 50 000-generation experiment. Because the evolved and ancestral bacteria were grown under identical conditions, our measurements reflect only evolved, heritable changes. Previous work has shown that E. coli cells also exhibit a plastic response to variation in nutrient supply, with their C : P ratio decreasing approximately 25% in response to a reduced C : P supply ratio, while the C : N supply ratio was held constant and the C : N ratio in biomass did not change [44]. The time scale of our experiment, while long in comparison to other laboratory experiments, is extremely brief in the context of Earth's history. Overall, our results indicate that evolutionary changes in stoichiometry can occur over a period of years or decades, and these evolved changes can be of similar scope to short-term physiological responses.

As predicted given the carbon-limited medium, we observed significant declines in both the C : N and C : P ratios of the bacterial biomass. However, there was no evidence of direct selection for elemental sparing, because the proportion of carbon (which was the limiting element) in biomass did not change. Rather, the declines in the C : N and C : P ratios resulted from increases in the proportions of both nitrogen and phosphorus in the bacteria. These increases might reflect a relaxation of prior selection for elemental sparing of nitrogen and phosphorus. However, we cannot distinguish the direct effect of selection due to low carbon, high nitrogen and high phosphorus from the indirect effects of selection favouring other traits in the evolution experiment. For example, some portion of the stoichiometric changes that we observed might simply be correlated responses to selection for larger cell size [45], faster growth rate [31] or other traits.

The exceptionally high C : N and C : P ratios of the evolved clone from the citrate-consuming lineage, which had access to approximately 10 times more carbon than any other population [34], provide some evidence that the declines in the C : N and C : P ratios in the other populations were beneficial specifically under the very low C : N and C : P supply ratios of the LTEE. However, the higher relative carbon content of the citrate-consuming clone is not necessarily itself strictly an evolutionary response. Instead, the citrate consumer's higher carbon content might also be, in whole or in part, a plastic physiological response to the higher carbon availability that it experiences as a result of its evolved ability to consume citrate.

Given the carbon-limited conditions of the LTEE, one might reasonably expect that the strongest selection on the bacteria would be to reduce the carbon in their biomass. However, increases in the bacteria's nitrogen and phosphorus content drove the changes in the C : N and C : P ratios, while there was no significant change in the percentage of carbon in the biomass. Taken at face value, this finding suggests that the proportion of carbon in biomass may be less evolutionarily flexible than the proportions of nitrogen and phosphorus. Alternatively, similar absolute changes in carbon content may be more difficult to detect because carbon makes up a much larger portion of the biomass.
""

The bacteria is still bacteria and the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

[Anomalocaris]

The bacteria is still bacteria and the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

And Cdf47 is still a moron. Some kinds indeed could never change. But most kinds did better.