Bacteria Amaze

[The Lorax]

Well, to me that doesn't prove evolution over creation.

Who said it's evolution over creation? Why is it one or the other?

Evolution is a form of creation. It's the work of God, a testament to His wisdom and His power.

[traveller]

Ok - dumb question here - is there a difference between adaption and evolution?

(Lorax - send the rain to Texas!!)

[The Lorax]

Ok - dumb question here - is there a difference between adaption and evolution?

No difference, essentially.

Living species adapt/evolve to changing circumstances over the course of time. This is called evolution by natural selection.

Not a dumb question at all, btw. The only dumb question is a question not asked.

(Lorax - send the rain to Texas!!)

UPS or Fedex? Either way, let me foot the bill.

[The Lorax]

Yes,

Adaption is changes within a population that helps them overcome a specific thing. The population does not change into something new due to the adaption. It is what is sometimes called micro-evolution.

Evolution on the Macro or Darwinian scale says that these adoptions occur enough so that the population becomes something new. In the grand scheme that is how we got from the little one celled thing that started life back in the primordial ooze to what you and I are today, if you believe in macro-evolution.

Saying "micro"-evolution is separate from "macro"-evolution is like saying you can clap 2 times, but not 10 times. It's like saying you can run a 5k but it's impossible to run a marathon. It strikes me as an arbitrary distinction.

[nebula]

When you think about it, evolution is a commonplace, common sense occurrence.

Only for those who believe it.

For the whole chemical signaling to work, the bacteria need to produce the chemicals and have receivers for the chemicals. What makes "sense" about random mutations building receptors for these chemicals? And of what value is the releasing of these chemicals if there are no receivers for them?

So for millions of years these bacteria were running around without these communication systems? If they can't survive well without the communication now, why should we assume they were able to survive well back then? How does this make sense?

[The Lorax]

For the whole chemical signaling to work, the bacteria need to produce the chemicals and have receivers for the chemicals. What makes "sense" about random mutations building receptors for these chemicals? And of what value is the releasing of these chemicals if there are no receivers for them?

Who says receptors have to be produced with a particular chemical signal in mind? Cells have millions of receptors reactive to a myriad of different chemicals. In theory and in life, an existing receptor can potentially mutate to become receptive to a different chemical, potentially one used in bacterial communication. A receptor did not have to be 'designed' for that purpose.

So for millions of years these bacteria were running around without these communication systems? If they can't survive well without the communication now, why should we assume they were able to survive well back then? How does this make sense?

Why do you assume all bacteria need communication to survive? Plenty of bacteria simply coat a surface and absorbs sunlight, for instance. Plenty of bacteria are asexual, simply cloning themselves. I don't see any inherent need for communication amongst bacteria.

[The Lorax]

showing that there are small changes in a population does not in any way mean that those small changes can add up to a totally new population, it is just not a logical next step.

But I never said small changes "add up to a totally new population."

It is critical to understand that species need not be separated by obvious or considerable differences. Species are distinguished by reproductive isolation. That's it. A single mutation can potentially create a reproductive barrier sufficient for speciation. This has been observed in nature and in labs.

It is a leap of faith. Small changes cant explain how the same ancestor gave us both humans and oak trees, it just cant no matter how hard you try.

You are making no real argument here. So you don't envision or appreciate the aggregation of small changes over a vast timespan, so what?

Clapping 2 times or 10 times is the same basic thing.

Making small changes to adapt to a particular circumstance is not the same as changing to something totally different.

Let me use this example...

I can change the tires on my car to snow tires to adapt to the icy weather, I can add AC to adapt to the hot weather, i can repaint the car, I can change the engine, I can make tons of small changes of this nature, but it does not logically follow that eventually it will no longer be a car.

I'll counter your example with a real-life, scientific one: Ring species. Let me know if you look it up, read about what they are, and want to discuss it.

[nebula]

Who says receptors have to be produced with a particular chemical signal in mind?

What use would a receptor be without the ability to receive? Do you honestly believe random mutations formed receptors for no purpose, and the ones that received specific chemicals survived while the others did not?

And of course, receiving chemicals is pointless without the likewise ability to process the chemical and make it useful.

I honestly do not understand how you can envision this chemical communication system to have just "evolved"? Between producing the chemical, receiving the chemical, processing the chemical, following a response to the chemical - all random mutations that somehow managed to work together?

Cells have millions of receptors reactive to a myriad of different chemicals. In theory and in life, an existing receptor can potentially mutate to become receptive to a different chemical, potentially one used in bacterial communication. A receptor did not have to be 'designed' for that purpose.

I don't have as much faith in luck as you seem to.

Why do you assume all bacteria need communication to survive? Plenty of bacteria simply coat a surface and absorbs sunlight, for instance. Plenty of bacteria are asexual, simply cloning themselves. I don't see any inherent need for communication amongst bacteria.

How do you know they don't communicate in order to work together? Didn't you hear the woman in the video - this discovery is all new!

[nebula]

I'll counter your example with a real-life, scientific one: Ring species. Let me know if you look it up, read about what they are, and want to discuss it.

But a salamander is still a salamander, and a gull is still a gull.

Going back to the car example, evolutionists would have us believe that by taking a Ford Mustang and changing this set of tires and changing this steering wheel, and then changing this and that have lead to a Toyota Corolla.

[The Lorax]

What use would a receptor be without the ability to receive? Do you honestly believe random mutations formed receptors for no purpose, and the ones that received specific chemicals survived while the others did not?

What use do your earlobes have?

The theory of evolution does not dictate everything must have a "use."

I honestly do not understand how you can envision this chemical communication system to have just "evolved"? Between producing the chemical, receiving the chemical, processing the chemical, following a response to the chemical - all random mutations that somehow managed to work together?

It is extremely difficult to envision anything on the timescale we're talking about, nebula. However, what matters is the presence of evidence to show this is possible and probable. I've have two degrees in the life sciences and from my experience, the deeper you delve, the more you appreciate God's ability to reject our immediate comprehension and even our wildest dreams.

I don't have as much faith in luck as you seem to.

I don't have any faith in luck. Evolution is driven by natural selection. Natural selection is not luck. Survival by adaption is not luck. If a mutation occurs and it happens to help an organism to survive, that mutation is more likely to propagate. That's basic logic.

Why do you assume all bacteria need communication to survive? Plenty of bacteria simply coat a surface and absorbs sunlight, for instance. Plenty of bacteria are asexual, simply cloning themselves. I don't see any inherent need for communication amongst bacteria.

How do you know they don't communicate in order to work together? Didn't you hear the woman in the video - this discovery is all new!

You argued bacteria would not exist if they could not communicate. I took this to mean, you think bacteria could not have evolved without communication. So I was not talking about bacteria today, I was talking about how they came about. We've had a slight confusion.