Starlight and Time

[dad1]

Does science know what time, specifically time in the distant universe is? If you claim it does, then be prepared to support that claim.

If science does not know that time exists out there in a way we know it here, then one implication is that no distances are knowable to distant stars.

Why? Because distances depend on the uniform existence of time. If time (in this example 4 billion light years from earth) did not exist the same as time near earth, then what might take a billion years (of time as we know it here) for light to travel a certain distance in space might, for all we know, take minutes weeks or seconds of time as it exists out THERE!

So what methods does science have to measure time there? I am not aware of any. Movements observed at a great distance and observed from OUR time and space would not qualify. Such observations would only tell us how much time as seen here it would take if time were the same there.

How this relates to religion is that a six day creation thousands of years ago cannot be questioned using cosmology if it really did not take light that reaches us on earth and area a lot of time to get here.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #189]

This is not a natural environment. This is an extinction event taking place. I never said and no creationist believes that adaptation does not happen. That is what this created event is. It is just a simple adaptation within a limited range.

What you are calling adaptation IS evolution. New generations of the bacteria evolved changes in their genomes that allowed them to survive in the new environments. The usual creationist lingo is to use "microevolution" and equate that to adaptation, and "macroevolution" to refer to speciation, as a way to get around the simple fact that macroevolution is just the result of extended periods of microevolution which results in greater change but is not a different mechanism.

Put increasing bleach in the same event and see if the same thing happens. What will happen is that all the bacteria will die. Adaptation is always within a limited range.

Bleach would be the extinction event. If the video were an extinction event there would not be any populations in each successive band ... because they would have become extinct. Extinction did not happen because they evolved, so the video is an example of evolution at work.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #190]

It has different functions. What are the new functions that we have?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #191]

What you are calling adaptation IS evolution. New generations of the bacteria evolved changes in their genomes that allowed them to survive in the new environments. The usual creationist lingo is to use "microevolution" and equate that to adaptation, and "macroevolution" to refer to speciation, as a way to get around the simple fact that macroevolution is just the result of extended periods of microevolution which results in greater change but is not a different mechanism.

No evolution is not adaption.

Adaption is bounded.
Evolution is not bounded.
Adaption limits the change that can happen.
Evolution says that there is no limit to the change that can occur.

What has been "Observed" in nature is adaptation, not evolution. Lenski's experiment further proves adaptation not evolution. There is a limit to the change which can occur.

Put increasing bleach in the same event and see if the same thing happens. What will happen is that all the bacteria will die. Adaptation is always within a limited range.
Bleach would be the extinction event. If the video were an extinction event there would not be any populations in each successive band ... because they would have become extinct. Extinction did not happen because they evolved, so the video is an example of evolution at work.

The video is an example of an extinction event because every bacteria except the ones that acquired the adaptation died. This type of extinction event causes a bottleneck that actually decreases the genetic information in the genome. Any genetic information that was not in the billions of bacteria that died was not passed on to the surviving bacteria. Only the surviving bacteria's genetic information was passed on.

The bacteria would not be able to adapt to the bleach because there is a limit to the amount of adaption. Heat the solution up to 160 degrees F. you will also have no bacteria. The bacteria would not be able to adapt to that situation either because there is a limit to adaptation.

[Jose Fly]

Well, in this experiment that was designed to test evolution there were no new species made.

Which experiment? Also, are you actually disputing that new species have been observed to evolve?

First, I did not define (it was actually only 11) mutations but Lenski did and they are described in post 179.

You're not making any sense. You mentioned "genetic information" in a quantitative context, so I'm asking you how you are defining and measuring "genetic information". If you don't know, just admit it.

Also, where is your citation for this bizarre claim that the Lenski experiment only identified 12 mutations?

Ok, when did the last beneficial mutation become fixed in the human genome?

That's not something I've ever looked into, so I don't know. Either way though, you completely missed the point (or are trying to divert the discussion). You asserted (without citation) that the E. coli in the Lenski experiment only experienced 12 mutations. That's a very bizarre claim, given that humans have 100-200 new mutations each. So again, where is your citation for this 12 mutations claim?

Are you trying to say that there are some humans more evolved than others?

No.

Marget Sanger believed that there were some more evolved than others. Edwin Black used Sanger's arguments in support of eugenics.

And Henry Morris believed black people were Hamites who are forever destined to be slaves. What's your point?

How could there not be some humans more evolved than others?

You don't know? Really? (hint: populations evolve, not individuals).

The fact that you don't even know this basic info exposes your fundamental ignorance of evolutionary biology. Normally that wouldn't be a big deal...very few people have such knowledge. But you don't know much about it, while going around speaking as if you're an authority in it, even to the point where you act like you know more than actual professional evolutionary biologists!

I have never understood this behavior from creationists. Yeah, I know it's the Dunning-Kruger Effect, but that only tells me what it is; it doesn't tell me how y'all can exhibit the behavior and be completely oblivious to what you're doing.

For your "evolution" to take place it would mean that out of that 116 of the 100-200 would have to become fixed in the population. That is not possible. In what population are all of these mutations becoming fixed? The liberal population?

Wait....are you actually arguing that evolution never occurs...ever?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #194]

You're not making any sense. You mentioned "genetic information" in a quantitative context, so I'm asking you how you are defining and measuring "genetic information". If you don't know, just admit it.

Also, where is your citation for this bizarre claim that the Lenski experiment only identified 12 mutations?

And I am saying the Lenski defined the mutations that were observed and became fixed in the ecoli genome. This is a famous experiment that has been going on for over 30 years. The 11 mutations are what he is using for his evidence for evolution. I cited 2 articles in post 179.

That's not something I've ever looked into, so I don't know. Either way though, you completely missed the point (or are trying to divert the discussion). You asserted (without citation) that the E. coli in the Lenski experiment only experienced 12 mutations. That's a very bizarre claim, given that humans have 100-200 new mutations each. So again, where is your citation for this 12 mutations claim?

Are you sure you understand your own theory of evolution? How many of the 100-200 mutations become fixed in the population? Evolution is not about mutations in individuals but in mutations that become fixed in the genome of an entire species or portion of a species. So saying that each individual has 100 to 200 mutations means nothing. How many of these mutations become fixed and at what rate do they become fixed? The answers to these questions indicate that evolution is impossible.

By all indications, humanity has not changed genetically for thousands of years. But according to the theory of evolution, there should have been 5000 mutations that have become fixed in the human genome in the past 1000 years. 10,000 mutations in the last 2000 years. How has man changed in the last 1000 years and in the last 2000 years?

You don't know? Really? (hint: populations evolve, not individuals).

Evidently, you do not understand this principle. Remember " given that humans have 100-200 new mutations each"

Wait....are you actually arguing that evolution never occurs...ever?

I am saying that unbounded adaption does not take place yes.

Bounded adaption takes place and is observed. Unbounded adaption has not been directly observed and does not take place. I explain this in post 191.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #193]

Adaption is bounded.
Evolution is not bounded.
Adaption limits the change that can happen.
Evolution says that there is no limit to the change that can occur.

Really? What defines these bounds? Does time (or number of generations) play any role in this idea of yours? Give an example of bounded adaptation that is not simply a limited number of generations. Adaptive changes are caused by exactly the same mechanisms that result in evolution, so on what basis do you claim they are not identical, with larger numbers of generations along with selection pressures leading to greater levels of "adaptation" (ie. evolution). What causes these bounds that you think exist?

Any genetic information that was not in the billions of bacteria that died was not passed on to the surviving bacteria. Only the surviving bacteria's genetic information was passed on.

What? Do you think the bacteria that survived to the next panel had completely different genomes and were entirely "new"? The short video didn't get into what mutations or how many occurred, but I'd assume that the genomes of the surviving bacteria were the same as their parents apart from some small set of mutations that allowed survival in the next panel. Certainly the bacteria in the initial panel did not all go extinct and magically a completely new propulation appeared from nowhere with a different genome entirely.

The bacteria would not be able to adapt to the bleach because there is a limit to the amount of adaption. Heat the solution up to 160 degrees F. you will also have no bacteria. The bacteria would not be able to adapt to that situation either because there is a limit to adaptation.

Bleach, or some high enough temperature to cook them, would be closer to murder than extinction. If you slowly added bleach in successively higher levels over hundreds of thousands of generations, or slowly raised the temperature over that time period, you may well get bacteria that could evolve to survive in the environments. But suddenly killing them all would obviously not allow any evolution, or adaptation, to occur.

[Jose Fly]

And I am saying the Lenski defined the mutations that were observed and became fixed in the ecoli genome. This is a famous experiment that has been going on for over 30 years. The 11 mutations are what he is using for his evidence for evolution. I cited 2 articles in post 179.

Ok, rather than chasing yet another creationist around, trying to get them to answer simple, basic questions, I'll just note two things.

First, your claim that in the E. coli in the Lenski experiment only "12 mutations have been observed" is not just wrong, it's incredibly wrong. From a 2008 Lenksi et al paper: "No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations." I suspect you confused the 12 populations at the start of the experiment with 12 mutations. IOW, you apparently don't know the difference between "population" and "mutation".

Second, once again you fail to provide a definition for, or means of measuring "genetic information" despite making quantitative assertions about. That leads to an obvious issue...if you don't know what "genetic information" is or how to measure it, how can you say whether it has increased, decreased, or remained the same in any given scenario? The answer is clearly...you can't.

So here we have a person who doesn't know the difference between "population" and "mutation", and makes claims about amounts of "genetic information" but doesn't know what "genetic information" is or how to measure it, yet apparently thinks himself more knowledgeable about evolutionary biology and genetics than professionals in those fields!

All I can is, I really, truly don't understand how you creationists allow yourself to do this.

Are you sure you understand your own theory of evolution?

Oh that's rich coming from you, given the above evidence of your own fundamental ignorance of the subject.

How many of the 100-200 mutations become fixed in the population? Evolution is not about mutations in individuals but in mutations that become fixed in the genome of an entire species or portion of a species. So saying that each individual has 100 to 200 mutations means nothing. How many of these mutations become fixed and at what rate do they become fixed?

Either you're deflecting or you've completely lost track of the conversation. I pointed to the human evolution rate as a means to illustrate the absurd ignorance in your claim that the E. coli in Lenski's experiment only underwent 12 mutations.

The answers to these questions indicate that evolution is impossible.

Yet we see it happen, all the time. You simply saying "it's impossible" doesn't make it so (especially given your astounding ignorance).

By all indications, humanity has not changed genetically for thousands of years. But according to the theory of evolution, there should have been 5000 mutations that have become fixed in the human genome in the past 1000 years. 10,000 mutations in the last 2000 years. How has man changed in the last 1000 years and in the last 2000 years?

Well, I'd ask to see your math but I'm pretty sure you don't have any. Surprise me.

You don't know? Really? (hint: populations evolve, not individuals).

Evidently, you do not understand this principle. Remember " given that humans have 100-200 new mutations each"

You're not making any sense.

I am saying that unbounded adaption does not take place yes.

Bounded adaption takes place and is observed. Unbounded adaption has not been directly observed and does not take place. I explain this in post 191.

Um....are "unbounded adaptation" and "bounded adaptation" things you just made up?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #197]

First, your claim that in the E. coli in the Lenski experiment only "12 mutations have been observed" is not just wrong, it's incredibly wrong. From a 2008 Lenksi et al paper: "No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations." I suspect you confused the 12 populations at the start of the experiment with 12 mutations. IOW, you apparently don't know the difference between "population" and "mutation".

I told you before and you even quoted me: "The 11 mutations are what he is using for his evidence for evolution. I cited 2 articles in post 179." As researchers have been writing papers they have cited these 11 mutations as the ones that prove evolution. These are the mutations that produce the novel change and increased fitness that drives evolution. So these are the ones that the researchers are claiming to go outside the bounds of normal adaption that creationists would agree with.

Either you're deflecting or you've completely lost track of the conversation. I pointed to the human evolution rate as a means to illustrate the absurd ignorance in your claim that the E. coli in Lenski's experiment only underwent 12 mutations.

Modern humans first appeared 300,000 years ago (using the deep time theory). https://theconversation.com/when-did-we ... nce-143717

And I find this very interesting that if that is true then 1.5E6 mutations would have to have become fixed in the human genome between the first humans and modern humans that exist today. If the ape-to-man theory is true. 5000 mutations would have had to become fixed in the human genome since 1000 AD. How are we different than humans 1000 years ago or 2000 years ago.

I am showing that Lenski's experiment does describe what is obserable in nature.

Well, I'd ask to see your math but I'm pretty sure you don't have any. Surprise me.

I was actually low. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1461236/

Many previous estimates of the mutation rate in humans have relied on screens of visible mutants. We investigated the rate and pattern of mutations at the nucleotide level by comparing pseudogenes in humans and chimpanzees to (i) provide an estimate of the average mutation rate per nucleotide, (ii) assess heterogeneity of mutation rate at different sites and for different types of mutations, (iii) test the hypothesis that the X chromosome has a lower mutation rate than autosomes, and (iv) estimate the deleterious mutation rate. Eighteen processed pseudogenes were sequenced, including 12 on autosomes and 6 on the X chromosome. The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10(-8) mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation.

Um....are "unbounded adaptation" and "bounded adaptation" things you just made up?

What don't you understand about the words bounded and unbounded?
Bounded adaptions mean there is a limit to the scope of change that can take place.
Unbounded means there is no limit on the scope of change that can take place.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

Really? What defines these bounds? Does time (or number of generations) play any role in this idea of yours? Give an example of bounded adaptation that is not simply a limited number of generations. Adaptive changes are caused by exactly the same mechanisms that result in evolution, so on what basis do you claim they are not identical, with larger numbers of generations along with selection pressures leading to greater levels of "adaptation" (ie. evolution). What causes these bounds that you think exist?

Time and number of generations is what I am saying is a major boundary on adaption. There is simply not enough time for unbounded adaption to take place in the way that evolution says it can. That is what Lenski's experiment shows.

Evolution makes the prediction adaption increases fitness and eventually can produce new structures by increasing fitness. I am making this very general so as to keep the discussion very visible. So evolution and adaption would separate at the point where new structures are made. Adaption is based on information that is already in the genome. Creating information to make new structures is that is not in the genome would be considered evolution and not adaption.

What? Do you think the bacteria that survived to the next panel had completely different genomes and were entirely "new"? The short video didn't get into what mutations or how many occurred, but I'd assume that the genomes of the surviving bacteria were the same as their parents apart from some small set of mutations that allowed survival in the next panel. Certainly the bacteria in the initial panel did not all go extinct and magically a completely new propulation appeared from nowhere with a different genome entirely.

I agree with you that the surviving bacteria were the same as their parents apart from some small set of mutations that allowed survival. No one said that all the bacteria went extinct. I said exactly what you said. The bacteria that did not have the adaption did not survive. Most of the time an adaption causes a decrease in function in one area and produces an increase in "fittness." This is why I asked you what type of mutation caused the increase in fitness.

Bleach, or some high enough temperature to cook them, would be closer to murder than extinction. If you slowly added bleach in successively higher levels over hundreds of thousands of generations, or slowly raised the temperature over that time period, you may well get bacteria that could evolve to survive in the environments. But suddenly killing them all would obviously not allow any evolution, or adaptation, to occur.

Ok, lets look at the example of bleach resistant proteins.

Jakob and her team were studying a bacterial protein known as heat shock protein 33 (Hsp33), which is classified as a molecular chaperone. The main job of chaperones is to protect proteins from unfavorable interactions, a function that's particularly important when cells are under conditions of stress, such as the high temperatures that result from fever.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... kob%20said.

Hsp33 is something that bacteria already makes. Increasing the amount of the Hsp33 protein protects the bacteria from bleach. There is no new structures, no new proteins just simply on increase in a protein that is already made by bacteria. Evolution predicts that new structures and new proteins are made from adaption.

These are the types of "evolution" that occurred in the Lenski experiment. So really all of the "evolution" in the Lenski experiment was nothing more than adaption. An enhancement or decrease in proteins and structures that already existed.

[Jose Fly]

I told you before and you even quoted me: "The 11 mutations are what he is using for his evidence for evolution. I cited 2 articles in post 179." As researchers have been writing papers they have cited these 11 mutations as the ones that prove evolution. These are the mutations that produce the novel change and increased fitness that drives evolution. So these are the ones that the researchers are claiming to go outside the bounds of normal adaption that creationists would agree with.

You're not making any sense......at all.

Contrary to what you first claimed, there were billions of mutations in the E. coli, not 12. Now it seems you're saying 12 of those mutations "go outside the bounds of normal adaption" (whatever that is) and creationists do not "agree with" those mutations.

What specific 12 mutations are you referring to? What are the "bounds of normal adaption"? Why don't creationists "agree with" the mutations? How can they not "agree with" the mutations if they were documented to occur?

Modern humans first appeared 300,000 years ago (using the deep time theory). https://theconversation.com/when-did-we ... nce-143717

And I find this very interesting that if that is true then 1.5E6 mutations would have to have become fixed in the human genome between the first humans and modern humans that exist today. If the ape-to-man theory is true. 5000 mutations would have had to become fixed in the human genome since 1000 AD. How are we different than humans 1000 years ago or 2000 years ago.

Given your profound ignorance of this subject, I'm not about to take your mere say-so for....well, anything.

I am showing that Lenski's experiment does describe what is obserable in nature.

Huh? Just above you said the Lenski experiment went "outside the bounds of normal adaption that creationists would agree with", but here you're saying it describes what's observable. So I guess creationists don't agree with observed reality then. Thanks for admitting that I guess.

I was actually low. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1461236

Many previous estimates of the mutation rate in humans have relied on screens of visible mutants. We investigated the rate and pattern of mutations at the nucleotide level by comparing pseudogenes in humans and chimpanzees to (i) provide an estimate of the average mutation rate per nucleotide, (ii) assess heterogeneity of mutation rate at different sites and for different types of mutations, (iii) test the hypothesis that the X chromosome has a lower mutation rate than autosomes, and (iv) estimate the deleterious mutation rate. Eighteen processed pseudogenes were sequenced, including 12 on autosomes and 6 on the X chromosome. The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10(-8) mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation.

Again....huh? That paper doesn't support your claims at all. This has gotten really, really weird. Are you okay?

What don't you understand about the words bounded and unbounded?
Bounded adaptions mean there is a limit to the scope of change that can take place.
Unbounded means there is no limit on the scope of change that can take place.

Looks like you just made those up.