Perhaps you've been wondering how creationists handle new research in biology. We've already seen how Conservapædians cope: by denial, bleating for the data, and threatening lawsuits, basically by putting on a freak show to distract from the evidence. Facing the same data from the Lenski lab, Answers in Genesis plays a different game: we knew it all along. It isn't what scientists say it is. We'll just use the scientific explanation with a few of our buzzwords tossed in.
Here's AiG's conclusion about the work of Richard Lenski on evolution in E. coli. It misses the main point — the demonstration of historical contingency — but it basically parrots and accepts the standard scientific understanding, with a few exceptions (they'll be easy to spot — wherever the text lapses in Mr Gumby-esque assertions, that's the creationism bellowing.)
Mutations which lead to adaptation, termed adaptive mutations, can readily fit within a creation model where adaptive mechanisms are a designed feature of bacteria allowing them to survive in a fallen world. Since E. coli already possess the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions, it is conceivable that they could adapt and gain the ability to utilize citrate under broader conditions. This does not require the addition of new genetic information or functional systems (there are no known "additive" mechanisms). Instead degenerative events are likely to have occurred resulting in the loss of regulation and/or specificity. It is possible that the first mutations or potentiating mutations (at generation 20,000) were either slightly beneficial or neutral in their effect.
Given the selective pressure exerted by the media of a limited carbon source (glucose) but abundant alternative carbon source (citrate), the cells with slightly beneficial mutations would be selected for and increase in the population. Alternatively, if the mutational effects were neutral the cells with these mutations might remain in the population just by chance, since they would not be selected for or against. Around generation 31,500 additional mutations enabled the cells to utilize citrate and grow more rapidly than cells without the adaptive mutations. Adaptive mechanisms in bacteria work by altering currently existing genetic information or functional systems to make the bacteria more suitable for a particular environment. Further understanding of Lenski's research is valuable for development of a creation model for adaptation of bacterial populations in response to the adverse environmental conditions in a post-Fall, post-Flood world.
Cunning, eh? From denying that beneficial mutations exist at all, we've got them to the point where they admit that they can be found…they're just calling them "adaptive mutations", with the implication that these are like the physiological mechanisms that allow organisms to engage in short-term changes in behavior or metabolism. Of course, they're still croaking on about The Fall, which never happened, and there is that bit at the beginning about an absence of new genetic information that is a complete lie, but it's progress. It's still dishonest misrepresentation, but they know enough to let a shadow of the real science peek through, for verisimilitude's sake, at least.
The creationists are evolving. Or perhaps they'd prefer that we say they're "adapting".
- Log in to post comments
Oh wow, though I wouldn't expect any less from Answers in Genesis. If they can call an Archaeopteryx a whole bird, this is child's play.
AiG seem to play the game better than most creotard websites. They know just how far to shift the goalposts as to ensure nothing will ever shatter their worldview.
One day the transmogrification will be complete. Until then, we must pray for them.
verisimilitude = Quality of appearing to be real or true
I had to look it up - just posting it here for anyone else in the same boat! :-)
It's rather amusing that they have been pushed so far into the corner as to force them to concede so much ground. Granted, they didn't have much to begin with, but still. Research like Lenski's is so thorough that they were left with virtually no way to misrepresent it save for token word games that will only appeal to what is or will be (hopefully) a dwindling audience.
Answers in Genesis, 2018:
"Well known mechanisms result in novel genetic information leading to phenotipic changes that are then selected for or against by the environment. The progressive accumulation of these changes through millions of years lead to the appearance and diversification of species in an unguided process.
"God set all this up, so evolution is not true."
The Fall never happened? On the contrary, The Fall are still going strong:
http://www.visi.com/fall/
Ouch. Make that "phenotypic", please.
stevogvsu @ 4: "It's rather amusing that they have been pushed so far into the corner as to force them to concede so much ground."
It is, but I do wonder at what point it just becomes easier to understand and accept evolution rather than make evermore convoluted stores to deny it?
What is the breaking point for cognitive dissonance of this scale?
The creationists do have a hard row to weed. Their creation myth is 4,000 years old, and incapable of changing. And was never meant to be anything other than a story anyway.
Science comes up with new data and evidence every day that they have to explain away, every day. They will ultimately go the way of the flat earthers and geocentrists. Hopefully without torching to many Giordano Bruno's along the way. And hopefully, their museum in Petersburg will, in a few hundred years, be a monument to human willful ignorance.
@ Jason
Personally, I don't believe that some among the AiG crowd and their ilk will shrug off or shatter their blinder at any point during their lives. Even if they did, most would never admit it. Dissonance aside, they've already proven more than once that a movement based on inherently anti-intellectual principles will not be swayed by facts. They only reason a group like AiG is willing to give any ground on this issue is so that they can continue to pretend that they are a credible institution, conducting real science. This is why those being educated now must be taught science, reason, and critical thinking skills. The old guard will probably never be toppled, but if there is no one there to replace them it all topples.
I think I see the problem here. The article clearly hasn't gone through AiG's peer review process yet. It will be edited accordingly.
I was just wondering if all bacteria before the "fall" were friendly bacteria from which no one and nothing ever got sick but after that bitch Eve bit the apple then god made many kinds of bacteria cause disease. I think the evidence for that is in one of the Flintstone episodes.
Way more than you can imagine.
The Flat Earthers are all but gone but they lasted into almost the 21st century.
20% of the US population (26% of the fundies) still believe the sun orbits the earth. Obviously, they have a hard time imagining how we can send probes to Saturn and Mars. Must have to sneak them by the sun at night.
In a few hundred years the creos should be down to 20%, the lower limit for any idea no matter how stupid that people will believe.
Or if they succeed in tearing our society apart to the Dark Ages level as they fervently desire, it could be nearly 100% and the modern Inquisition would be seeking out heretics on a daily basis.
Creationists like to bang on (incorrectly) about natural selection not adding genetic information, But there's one case where we don't need additional information to get something new. In fact, a deletion of information does the job nicely. Take an 'a' & an 'o' from 'creationist' & we get 'cretinist'. There, evolution in action.
Gives you a little hope,doesn't it? They are also on board with the whole "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" being nonsense
They also have a list of admission, a list of things not to say anymore. I like that. It helps move the discussion forward.
Sadly 99% of the rest of the website in uneducated bunk. But if AG can accept a "slightly" beneficial mutation and southern baptists can accept a science based view of global warming.....maybe there is hope?
raven @13: "The Flat Earthers are all but gone but they lasted into almost the 21st century."
Indeed, if you have a good local library you can find letters to the editor from the sixties where flat earthers decry NASA orbital imagery as faked via fisheye lenses (to make the Earth appear round and cover up the Biblical fact of its flatness, of course)
By the time their efforts will become real science they will completely dissolve in existing science. And I think they are going through adaptation and not through evolution. Just by the sheer definition of it.
i think the consensus is that they used to eat coconuts.
Ah, but have they added to it recently? Or, indeed, at all?
Well, I think Alex (at #18) just won the interwebs for today!
These guys will NEVER accept what is obvious to the rest of the clear-thinking world.
They claim that this doesn't show "molecules-to-man"
Imagine the hypothetical scenario where a scientist painstakingly managed to 'evolve' a bacterium into a mammal. The scientist publishes the work and its all over the media.
The creationist response:
"Sure, thats just MACRO-ADAPTATION in response to the adverse environmental conditions in a post-Fall, post-Flood world...."
Arrrggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO2n3GHGK7c
Honestly, I couldn't even find it this time. Talk origins has a link to it somewhere, and its in my bingo game
But I couldn't find it just now. Still, I like to think that perhaps the debate is moving ever so slowly forward.
Hear that, bacteria? Before the Serpent conned Eve into eating that naughty fruit, bacteria were not allowed 'adaptive mutations'.
So, I'm not the most fluent in the more detailed aspects of ToE, but are they claiming that any benefits gained in Lenski's E coli are a result of a LOSS of genetic information? Or is there some basis for that idea that I've glossed over?
Extrapolating this, I guess that fits in with their "no new genetic information can be gained, 2nd Law of thermodynamics" hogwash. But to me it seems like another shot directly into the top of their foot.
How can they reconcile this acceptance of genetic adaptation with their understanding of The Fall (Adam and Eve's removal from Eden) coupled with their young earth hypothesis? The "adverse environmental condition" for human adaption after The Fall was that there were only two members of the human species. A similar argument may be made that human species faced a similar challenge in the immediate post-deluvian era. Given the myriad genetic variations of our species today, wouldn't the rate of genetic adaption between then (the fall or the flood) and now have to be extraordinarily high and/or rapid? I'm sure this isn't the first time this argument has seen the light of day. But given their reasoning, shouldn't we be seeing some new genetic variations of the human species sometime soon? If so, I hope they have some cool adaptive features, like a bottle-opening thumb or SPF 30 skin.
What a bunch of geniuses. They want to concede that changes can occur and strengthen through generations? Fine. Now they need to explain what keeps those changes from becoming so numerous and extensive that the life-form no longer resembles its ancestors. Once you open that door, its opened all the way.
It's another demonstration of why creationism isn't science. They can twist pretty much anything to fit their worldview, with no way to falsify it.
If the creos do get to take over this country, the Chinese (among others) will be laughing all the way to the bank. Be prepared to cede Los Angeles as a special concession.
Right. The implication, of course, being that one can improve an organism by cutting out parts of God's original design. It's a wonder creationists have any feet left.
looks like the creationists' infamous "wedge" strategy is ultimately turning out to be double-edged: their ongoing pursuit of standing and prestige in the scientific community continues to force them to cede more and more intellectual ground to the scientists.
because once they decided to adopt "intelligent design" and don a cloak of empiricism, their having to wage war in the same evidentiary arena as career scientists forces upon them certain necessary retreats from more and more areas of the battlefield as more and more modern evidence piles up against them.
not that they'll ever admit it.
Embrace and extend, hmm?
This quote by one of the creationists over at Conservapedia nearly made me laugh out loud. I could almost feel the O RLY owl pop over my head:
(bolding mine)
Yes, suddenly, "beneficial mutations" are now on the "to accept" list, but those don't add information (!). Dembski's pretend laws of conserv(apedi)ation, I suppose?
Awesome, succinct comment. You should post it on UD, watch the feathers fly :)
I wouldn't be too encouraged. They admit much, but they also deny what they admit:
Except, of course, it does require the addition of new genetic information. Sort of the point, you know.
They have to deny it because if new information can be added, maybe evolution can occur.
Then too, it's the usual complete stupidity about what constitutes science. Mutations can "readily fit" their little myth, never mind having a theory that predicts and explains a damn thing.
There is truth in their need for such adaptations, since they rely on hyper-evolution "after the Flood" to make up for the fact that Noah's ark couldn't hold a small zoo, let alone (nearly) all living things. Such a need is not "prediction" in any scientific sense, of course, but they seem quite unable to know, and above all, to care about such glaring deficiencies.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
"are they claiming that any benefits gained in Lenski's E coli are a result of a LOSS of genetic information? Or is there some basis for that idea that I've glossed over?"
If a point mutation results in a new, heretofore-unknown, functionality, it is likely that the protein previously encoded by the gene, can lo longer perform its original function, whatever it was. Creationists chose to construe this as a loss, withouth bothering to investigate the actual proteins at issue.
As long the new functionality is "balanced" by the (putative) loss of another protein, creationists are content.
Not surprsing. Fundamentalist have explicitly said that if evidence contradicts the bible then the evidence is wrong (the fact that the bible contradicts the bible doesn't create a paradox vortex in their skull shows the level of cognitive dissonace here).
So Schlafly goes into denial mode and sends his legion of homeschooled children minions to find a legal way for him to get lab samples of bacteria. This will end, at worst, Schlafly obtaining the samples, winning a pointless battle but only to be rewarded with massive diarrhea. At best, the judge will have him declared en enemy combatant for trying to obtain biohazardous material. He will suffer the torture and human abuse that conservatives pushed so hard for.
AiG meanwhile goes into rationalization mode. The evidence of adaptive change of species supports the bible. Uhmm hmm. Reminds me of the woman who finds under her son's bed a magazine with naked men. She concludes that his son has a secret girlfriend and the magazine belongs to her.
It's so funny. They hold science up to their creation story and chop off any bits that don't fit. It's completely Orwellian. Feeding bite size religious coated scraps of half truth to the masses.
Yes. Let me give you an example. Let's say I win $10 million the lottery tomorrow. I'm not getting any "additive" income. I'm merely losing my previous "lack of money". My poverty is clearly degenerating. To put it in scientific terms, God was just restoring my innate richness that I lost due to original sin.
Dr. Purdom has a genuine education in molecular genetics and some pretensions to still be considered a scientist.
Let's not forget that the intended audience will be overawed by her Ph.D. and her fluency with the technical terms. They won't notice that 'adaptive mutation' means 'beneficial mutation resulting in an increase in information', they'll skim the bit with the long words and jump to the conclusion so that they can confidently assert "Ph.D. scientists say that evolution cannot happen."
Thank you PZ, after the 'What if' post and this one and especially the comments here I haven't stopped laughing. Some of the comments on this thread are molly worthy on their own and pure comedy gold. Oh how their ears must be burning over at LiesInGenesis.
Ahh so the recent poor Real Estate market is causing us to lose our previous lack of poverty and returning us, as heathen atheists, to our innate poorness.
Fantastic.
The logic is impeccable.
Wonderful.
Echoing the sentiment of a couple of posters, I have to say that Answers' assessment seems (at least) a little naive, but not nearly as full of self-righteous hubris as the Conservapedia. It almost sounds as if the writer is a student just beginning to "get" evolution. In grasping these fundamental concepts and trying to reconcile them with their current "understanding" of the universe, a religious believer can begin to cede some of the credit given to the Hand of God to scientific phenomena cascading from an origin event. Through this education and reconciliation process, they may even garner a reverence for the empirical greater than they ascribed to the mystical. Eventually, as was the case for myself many years ago, thy realize that the words they're using to describe this awe are just culturally-loaded proxies, and they grow out of them too.
From "physics is the mechanism by which God operates on the universe" to "God is part and parcel to the universe" to "the universe is beautiful and full of rich wonder that requires no confabulation to appreciate."
It's a progression, and one that begins with actually trying to assimilate knowledge rather than refuse it with bias.
In a fallen world?
Do they ever explain how sin works for bacteria on a biological level? Can these microscopic children of god be forgiven their sins? Do the forgiven go to heaven? Do saved Escherichia coli make shit not stink?
Can AiG help us here?
Gene (#12)
That is exactly what AIG says (though this particular article deals specifically with viruses rather than bacteria):
From the abstract:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/viruses.asp
Feynmaniac beat me to it, but here's a page from AiG where they do explicitly state:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/HOME/AREA/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
I remember when I first ran across that page, having a hard time fathoming the willful ignorance. That was years ago, though. Now I realize it's par for the course for that organization.
No. The poor people who took the subprime loans were poor because they were not faithful enough. They remained poor and could not pay their mortgages because they continued to lack the appropriate amount of faith.
Let us aid them with a study design. We can have the Pope sprinkle Escherichia coli with holy water and say a bunch of Hail Mary's and other prayers. Maybe even give Escherichia coli communion to see if the transubstantiation yields results rejecting a null hypothesis.
No new genetic information is possible, so any change is due to a loss.
I guess the adaptation in E. coli must have inactivated the "Don't Eat Citrate" gene.
# 8: stevogvsu @ 4: "What is the breaking point for cognitive dissonance of this scale?"
The next generation!
This is a war being fought over generations. The current proponents have too much mental and public investment to drop their nonsense.
But what will the next generation say? They will be brought up in a very different world. Their mental investment will be different. There will still be a lunatic fringe, of course, but they will have a different basis for their lunacy.
But lets get to the really important questions here:
Why do the quotes change font halfway through?
I've recently collected some AIG propaganda, a number of small pamphlets and a one or two larger books. They were good for a laugh, filled with just about every discredited creationist argument you've ever heard, yet at the same time they mention a few discredited arguments not to use. There is a reason that they say the creationist movement is where irony goes to die.
Anyway, the books contain a few comments on mutations, begrudgingly admitting that there might be a few situations where some might think that positive mutations have occurred (yeah, they will never really fully admit it, it's always that some argue this or some think that), but that for evolution to occur there has to have been billions of them and THAT has never been observed. That's how they get around accepting one positive mutation.
You want more genetic fun from the fundamentalist boneheads? I don't have the book on hand, so this isn't going to be an exact quote, but there's a great line talking about Adam and Eve's DNA. It says that "we know that Adam and Eve's DNA was perfect because God said that all he had made was "very good"". This is part of the argument that after the fall DNA started mutating, resulting in a loss of that perfection.
I guess it's a good thing that history shows a continual decline of the health of the global population from all these negative mutations, things like declining life expectancies over the entire written history of man, or else this argument would sound pretty stupid, wouldn't it?
confuseddave: If you mean the change to comic sans font, that is a signal you are looking at religious dumbfuckery of some kind or another interspersed between the proper science. PZ often uses it to highlight religious dumbfuckery in e-mails and the like he receives or reviews.
Wow. I'm sorry, but that's just freakin' hilarious. I thought bacteria such as E. coli were a by-product of The Fall, meant to plague us with nasty infections and so forth.
These people are so deluded and dishonest it makes my head spin. They can make ANYTHING blur right into their little fantasy if they spin it around fast enough.
I am so sick of this idiocy. When will these people grow up? When?
Gene@ 12
Pre-Fall, the E.coli in intestines made crap smell like lavender. Other bacteria in the guts of T.rex allowed it to digest coconuts.
In Lenski's lab, only the bacteria that accepted Christ as their personal savior were able to utilize citrate.
One result of all these discussions is that I finally understand one thing in the mind of the Creator.
God Hates Coconuts.
#49 - Nomad - You hit a fundie nail squarely with that perfect Adam & Eve DNA arguement. I got hit with that scientific line of reasoning by a potential saviour also. When I asked the goddist, where did Cains wife come from? Answer, Cains wife was one of his sisters. When I asked how god would allow that sin, I was told it was because Adam & Eve had perfect DNA their children could mate without causing idiots and it was a blessed union, not incest. What a brilliant line of reasoning!
Nomad @49 "I guess it's a good thing that history shows a continual decline of the health of the global population from all these negative mutations, things like declining life expectancies over the entire written history of man, or else this argument would sound pretty stupid, wouldn't it?"
IIRC the Genesis myth says that Adam lived about 950 years, and Eve nearly as long. Methuselah had him beat at 969 years. Two and three hundred year lifespans were common among the patriarchs. Anyone who believes in a 6000 year-old Earth will have no trouble agreeing with you, except they would claim the records *do show degeneration of the species.
Creationists are immune to both logic and data - the Devil's tools.
In the Old Testament of the E.coli Bible, citrate was clearly unclean under the dietary laws. With the new covenant, which resulted from God sending his least-favorite son to be the savior of the gut-dwellers, all such dietary bans were lifted. It's all explained in Poo's letter to the Colonians.
This retort by AiG is not terribly surprising, given that many creobots freely allow for microevolution, not macroevolution. That is surely how they are couching it in their minds, hence the should shrugging reaction. This allows them to feel sciencey without actually being so, because they think their acceptance (for all the wrong reasons) of one scientifically observed phenomenon affords them some level of discourse with science from which to feel empowered to criticize it (even though they still have no idea what they're talking about).
It's like the undisciplined rowdy sibling taunting the studious quiet one by standing just a bit too close but not touching, and proclaiming "SEE! I'm not touching him! He's just a baby!"
I'm confused by creationists. They're so promiscuously dishonest, I don't understand why this particular piece of evidence gets them to fidget and change their tune, if only slightly. Why not just lie about it or ignore it like they usually do, why admit anything, give any ground at all? Surely this must be a sign of the weakness of their position (strengths and weaknesses, anyone, or does that reasoning only apply to things they don't like?).
JM inc: The problem is that the rest of the world, i.e. the non creationist/ID one, accords science a certain respect and authority. A lot this science, especially evilution, is constantly knocking holes in their dumbfuckery. Thus they need to counter science's influence and one way to do that is to appear to explain things in a scientific way that is compatible with their dumbfuckery.
Unfortunately, not only don't they understand what the scientific method is, but even if they did, all their results, if they did real genuine science properly, would support us not them. So instead they take what the real scientists do and give it a dumbfuckery spin to make it give appear to their ignorant sheeple that they are scientists as well and with their spin can claim that evilution is wrong.
And yes, ultimately, it is a sign of weakness which will only get worse as even more such results come out of the research labs, not to mention more knowledge from associated fields.
I'm not really familiar with what "information" is in the context of DNA, except as a metaphor.
To my mind, there are many possible definitions, but they all require a human-like intelligence for verification that the phenomenon that one is observing is the result of "information" transfer.
I think this is an important issue, because to me, the concept of "adding or subtracting information" to DNA is a nonsense string of words.
Here's what I mean: one can imagine a bi-metallic device that will allow an machine to be cooled by a jet of water, for example, when the machine reaches a certain temperature and the deformation of the bimetallic "switch" opens a flap that allows cold water to cool the machine and the "switch", closing the flap to the water. One could say that the machine "senses" that it's hot and uses this information to "decide" to cool itself. Seems to be stretching the definition of "information" to me.
Another scenario might be a sensor sending digitized temperature readings to a microprocessor that executes a command to send a small electrical pulse to open the flap when the temperature exceeds a nominal value, and to close it when the temperature falls below another value.
If the machine is big enough, it could hold a person who opens the flap when they get too hot or who presses a switch to open the flap based on a temperature reading.
Questions: Which of these do/does not involve "information"? Does invoking the concept add to a description of the temperature control system.
With DNA, it seems to me the situation is equally well represented by anaology to the first scenario I describe. Transcription and translation are determined by physical interactions between objects of differing amount of electric attraction and repulsion that is a function of nucleotide order. Except as a metaphorical device to aid our understanding of how these physical tendencies can produce biological variation and evolution, I don't see that the idea of "information" has any reality outside of being a bit of shorthand that we information-perceiving creatures need to help us formulate models of heredity and evolution.
In other words, "information in DNA" is a semantic convenience that scientists can use to make predictive models --as long as the models are predictive, of course.
"Semantic conveniences" however, unlike energy, can be created and destroyed without violating and laws of God or physics, it seems to me, so the whole debate it a non-starter.
At least, this business of "genetic information" really sticks in my craw, not least because it keeps ecouraging Dembski and his to crawl out from under their rock.
To be fair (!) to AiG, their argument is not quite just a parroting of the scientific position. They're also adding: 'these bacteria are just re-adapting parts of their God-given genome which already allowed use of citrate under some conditions, so that they can use citrate under different conditions!' I've heard these nutjobs use this line of argument before - the mutations aren't adding anything new, they're just making a new combination of the 'tools' in the genetic 'toolkit' which God gave each animal 6000 years ago. All of which sounds vaguely plausible... if you know absolutely nothing about genetics. And guess what - most creationists know absolutely nothing about genetics.
Surely I'm not the only one that's fervently hoping Lenski writes a point-by-point rebuttal of this article (and the one at 'Creation on the Web' - yet more nonsense - http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827/), and rips this blithering fool a new one, as he did to Schlafly?
More generally "information" is always subjective and relative to its use. A rock can potentially "process information" about the weather (if it's wet, it's raining; if its warm, it's sunny; if it's moving, there's an earthquake), but it would be ludicrous to say that all rocks everywhere are objectively information processors. Information is always in the eyes of the beholder.
Sorry. I notice a lot of typos e.g. should be "DEmbski and his ilk". For completeness, I should mention that the physical interactions include amino acids , support proteins etc etc. Bit more complex than a bi-metallic strip...
information is perfectly applicable to a thermostat, I don't see what problem you have with it. Whether the thermostat is open or closed represents one "bit" of information. And yes it is perfectly correct that it "senses" (measures) the temperature of its enviroment and responds appropriately. I agree that saying it "decides" to switch is inappropriate as it really has no "choice" as to its "decision".
One distinction that is sometimes made is between "information" and "meaing". That is a purely random string of numbers has a very high "information" content but essentially no meaning. While most books may have a lot of "meaning", but a very low information density (which is why it can be compressed a lot). So, I disagree that "information is always in the eye of the beholder". I would say meaning is in the eye of the beholder, information does have an objective definition.
But what if I am not using the thermostat to sense temperature, but to, say, tell me whether it is light or dark in the room (if I see it, it's light; if I don't, it's dark)? What if I detach it from the wall and use it to sense whether there is a gravity field (if I let it go and it falls, there is; if it doesn't fall, there isn't)? What if the plastic case of the thermostat only melts above a certain temperature -- if the case is currently solid, does that mean it "represents" the bit of information that the current temperature is below its melting point?
Just determining what counts as "information" and what doesn't is subjective, and relative to the goals one has.
Gordy Slack should take a note, this is how it should be done.
Lurker: Thanks for clearing up the coconut-T.Rex-bacteria connection. I imagine that there were also bacteria in the T. Rex's mouth in case the coconuts got stuck on its teeth. They must have left a sweet smell in T. Rexs' mouth because bad breath, before the fall, would be, umm, bad.
But, wrpd, would Adam have been able to tell? Cause I'm thinking that olfactory receptors for unpleasant odors are in all likelihood post-fall.
I guess human DNA began to degrade after the fall and God was so worried about bacteria that he created an "adaptive mechanism" that allowed them to survive?
I knew God liked them best. (think Smothers Brothers)
I've seen a creationist on Conservapedia basically say "Yes Lenski's experiment shows mutations can add information and everything, but it's VERY VERY RARE so evolution is still impossible".
Leaving aside the fact that on the scale of the history of the Earth, once in 20 years and 12 populations is very not rare at all, the guy didn't seem to realize he's admitted defeat. "Mutations can never, by definition, add information" was their last line of defense, once you give that up it's just a matter of degree.
Hmmm actually on reading the comments I might be confused with the one who said creationists accept beneficial mutations. It's still the beginning of the end for that line of reasoning.
20% of the US population (26% of the fundies) still believe the sun orbits the earth.
How much of that percentage can be attributed to brain farts ? I know whenever I have to answer a question where the answer is a bit counter-intuitive but I know it and am eager to show it, 90% of the time I'll get it wrong and hate myself two seconds later. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person this happens to, and if you asked the 20% to, say, draw the solar system, most would get it right.
In the Old Testament of the E.coli Bible, citrate was clearly unclean under the dietary laws. With the new covenant, which resulted from God sending his least-favorite son to be the savior of the gut-dwellers, all such dietary bans were lifted. It's all explained in Poo's letter to the Colonians.
Longtime Lurker is a genius !
sigh... soon they will be saying that random natural selection was a designed trait that god gave to nature
You misinterpret. You apply sound reason, and that's never a good idea when it comes to theology. When Adam sinned, you see, God got so irrationally mad that He cursed the whole creation, as alluded to (but not quite made clear) in a verse by Paul. The bacteria did not sin -- they are being punished for our sins, that is, for Adam's.
Like how Job's children are massacred just so that Job learns his lesson.