Lenski’s Long Term Evolutionary Experiment
Richard Lenski began the LTEE with 12 populations (six and six ) of the bacterium Escherichia coli on 24th February, 1988. The experiment is currently housed at Michigan State University and has run continuously apart from a short break while relocating to the present site and another during the height of the Covid-19 outbreak.
The method is very straightforward. Each 24 hours, from flasks of the bacterium in a growth medium known as Davis minimal broth dosed with glucose at 25 mg per litre (DM25), are extracted by pipette a random sample of 0.1 ml which is added to a new volume of 9.9 ml DM25 in new flasks which are then incubated at 37°C for 24 hours and the procedure repeated indefinitely.
What the experiment does is to provide a consistent, stable and simplified niche for the twelve lines allowing them to proceed in parallel isolation (great care is taken to avoid cross-contamination). This allows the researchers to test whether evolutionary change is inevitable, repeatable or unpredictable.
One objection often made by critics is that, being designed, the experiment is not a true test of natural evolution. But Lenski chose the environment, he does not design the bacteria. A random (the flasks are continuously agitated on a mixing plate to ensure uniform distribution of cells) sample makes it through to the next generation (70,000 and counting in the thirty years the experiment has been running) but, over time, the twelve lines have undergone changes that can be observed. Cells have become larger, redundant (in the experimental niche) parts of the genome have become broken.
The most spectacular change so far has been the arrival of the ability of one line to metabolise citrate aerobically. The change has been well-studied because deep-frozen samples are retained every 75 days and DNA sequences (thanks to cheaper and quicker DNA sequencing) can be compared to match genomic changes against phenotypic changes. The ability to digest citrate involved changes at more than one locus, a beautiful illustration of neutral evolution and genetic drift.
The LTEE also is an excellent refutation for Creationist John Sandford and his “Genetic Entropy” idea. I’m sure others can point out errors but this OP is meant only to provoke discussion and not to be authoritative so please jump in with comments.
As a consequence of reading this, Beatles ear worm.
MIS-representing is all you do.
You confused yourself with a bogus “research” clause that was not part of the original question. What “disprove”? It’s your opinion I asked for. Forget it. You made a mess as usual.
‘Believer’ is one thing, ‘theist’ another. Asking whether creationists are theists is dumb. “Nonbeliever” is also a dumb concept since there are no unconditional “nonbelievers”.
Cut the crap (but you won’t). There is no biochemistry in that experiment. You’re stretching ‘biochemistry’ well beyond its meaning. Might as well cover all chemistry since there can be a bit of every element in some organism. And you’re definitely not covering any petroleum chemistry in high school biology.
This is why people believe abiogenesis was achieved. Because of the lies told over and over by atheists.
But there’s no link between abiogenesis and biology. One is a hypothesis (an impossible one!), the other is reality. So Miller-Urey has no place in biology.
Same with “evolution” and genetics. Little monkey insists raping their female monkeys creates a relationship. It doesn’t. Now for the dimwits, “evolution” raping genetics that has no use for “evolution” is not a relationship.
I did and learned that Lenski confirmed there’s no “fitness” anywhere, and in fact he’s measuring something else entirely. That’s science no one here wants to touch. Your collective silence is hilarious.
Not what I said. MIS-representation is contagious at TSZ.
Any model that has an “evolution” module has in fact a redundant module, namely the “evolution” one.
Example 1: one can introduce an “evolution” module into the moon landing model. That “evolution” module is useless!
Example 2: Lenski starts by assuming “evolution” and then goes on measuring other things entirely. His “evolution” assumption is redundant.
Example 3: the MTEE I describe. You get the idea… or not.
When God created the solar system did he literally say ‘Let there be light’?
Can you link to somewhere on the internet where someone is telling such a lie? Or perhaps an image of a textbook where such a lie is taught to children?
If not, are you not then the liar?
On the contrary, real scientists want to discover something new and get the edge and publish something new!
If you really had something, and you don’t, then your ‘ideas’ would have been picked up on already. You don’t have anything, but if you did, someone would have used it as the basis for some actual science by now. But you don’t have anything.
The funny thing is there is no ‘science’ nobody wants to touch. Your entire claim is that evolution does not happen/is wrong, nothing about what actually does happen, where variety and species actually come from.
What is the origin of species according to nonlin? No fucking idea at all. All I know is what he thinks is wrong, and there’s no ‘science’ there at all.
So, nonlin, whence cometh the horse? The cow? The crow?
Do you believe snakes can talk, out of interest?
You have a very traumatic life little monkey. I didn’t know. That still doesn’t justify your attitude towards people who are just trying to help you out.
It would do you a lot of good to try and read for comprehension little monkey. Otherwise you keep ridiculing your literacy and mental “talents.” For one, we were not talking about your personal traumatic experiences. We were talking parasitism. Thus:
From the only source you ever consult, yet fail to read properly:
From another source:
The title of this one should give you a clue (click on the link to find the title, if you’re able):
However, I explained a tad more for your benefit little monkey:
Genetics and evolution are separated in words, but intimately intertwined in nature. The divide is, as with everything we do to try and understand the world around us, artificial. The conceptual divide remains as a historical relic. Genetics cannot be studied dryly, without any regards to what happens to the genetic material as time goes by, as individuals reproduce, as populations separate. You want to sterilize biology. Fortunately, biology is not up to you and your ignorant stupidity.
Now, you’ll miss the whole thing, as always. Usual for you to try and hide your incompetence. Even then, you managed to show that you cannot read a couple of paragraphs.
My advice, as if you were able to understand it, is this: read carefully little monkey. Read twice or thrice if necessary. Otherwise you’ll continue ridiculing yourself time and again.
That might be too advanced for you. As always. So I expect your usual, though very telling, silence.
Can anybody imagine a world a la Nonlin? A world where someone is studying embryological development, and then doesn’t even think of checking the involved proteins and the genes encoding for them. To try and keep the sanctity of the separate fields of research, embryology/development and genetics shall not be intertwined.
Let’s imagine now that at least Nonlin “allows” embryologists to mend with genetics, because, you know, it’s all up to Nonlin, whatever anybody else thinks doesn’t matter, then these embryologists discover one of the proteins involved in the establishment of the embryo’s axis. The first homeobox ever discovered. Then the embryologists would not be allowed to even imagine that there might be duplicates of the gene and that those duplicates might also be involved, for fear that thinking in evolutionary terms would make Nonlin angry for violating the sanctitude of both, embryology and genetics. Then the homeobox family would take forever to be discovered, since nobody is looking for it.
Now, more work is done, the second homeobox is discovered, but do not even dare comparing that protein to the first! Thinking in evolutionary terms is forbidden! Duplications never happen, so don’t check. Oh, and forget about checking if these proteins make a family, or if they’re present in different species, or if they form a pattern suggesting an evolutionary history, let alone one that makes sense given what is being discovered as each stage in the development of the embryo is studied. No sir. Forget about it. The “no-relationship” has to be kept one way. Evolutionary thinking cannot enter any research field, no matter how helpful and interesting, no matter how fruitful. Science must remain dry and ignorant, otherwise Nonlin would be very unhappy.
How fortunate we are that Nonlin is just an inconsequential hypocritical simpleton, who cannot even agree with himself, posting incoherent bullshit across the web.
I don’t believe it. Fresh from denying a link between genetics and evolution, nonlin double-somersaults over the shark!
Lenski et al. use growth rate as a measure of relative fitness. This is not difficult. Is how fast you can grow in your niche not an indication of how fit you are (as a population of E. coli)? I mean a population that produces most descendants will be the one that grows fastest.
Entropy, Yes, cross-disciplinary research — cooperation between scientists (and engineers) with different skills and experience — is hugely productive.
Nonlin’s illiteracy is abysmal. Now Nonlin thinks that “fitness components” means “things that have nothing to do with fitness.”
Now you think that your illiteracy is science? Well, maybe for studies on cognitive dysfunctions, I’ll give you that.
Well, let’s not talk about your incompetence, because it’s a tragic-comedy.
I remember reading somewhere that of all the creationists entering college who graduate with degrees in biology, 80% of them are STILL creationists. Generally speaking, education does not cure creationism. It’s like showing an endless stream of pictures to a blind person, and wondering why he finds none of them persuasive.
The “Morton’s Demon” position is that the creationist CAN not see, not that he WILL not see. Blindness is still blindness even among those who blinded themselves. And of course the most important thing they can’t see is that they are blind!
Ah, you are right. You asked for the overlap between atheism and abiogenesis support. In my defense, your question was in response to my comment that you conflated atheism with abiogenesis research.
Let me indulge you one final time: I suppose that the proportion of atheists among people supportive of abiogenesis will be similar to that of the populace in general minus all creationists. Vice versa, I expect that the support for abiogenesis will be similar among atheists and theists minus all creationists. I won’t attach any numbers to that; I hope you get the point this time.
No, it is obvious. You missing this obvious fact whenever you conflate abiogenesis with atheism is dumb.
It is hilarious that you keep trying to isolate evolutionary research from all other disciplines. Yes, studying the chemical processes that have given rise to life on earth is an exercise in biochemistry. Like it or not, evolutionary biology is well embedded in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics, ecology, theoretical biology and a few more.
You haven’t answered my question, Nonlin. Can you tell us in your own words what the purpose of the LTEE was? I am guessing the answer is “no”.
LMAO. There is no “evolution module” in quantitative genetic models, Nonlin. You can’t take out the change in heritable characters, because that is what is being modeled.
Now, you seem to have gone in denial mode again, so I think I will bow out of this discussion. You can have the last word. I trust it will be as amusing as the rest.
Morton’s Demon has close parallels in many a conspiracy theory, such as, to take a current example, anti-vax. Reason is powerless in the face of this kind of thinking.
I heard the following story when I was visiting a good friend and his cleaning lady was there. A friend of her’s went to her local doctor to arrange an appointment for a vaccination. The doctor refused to arrange it and instead gave her a prescription for vitamin D and, amazing if true, one fresh orange daily!
Doctors thinking vitamin D is better than the vaccine is not restricted to France. You may have encountered Jon Garvey, a retired UK GP who used to post at Uncommon Descent and Peaceful Science. From his blog:
Doctors are not immune to quackery!
Vitamin D has its place, but I’m highly suspicious of dietary ‘cures’. My sister-in-law is a medical graduate, though is not patient-facing, and she sends my wife all manner of anti-Covid gargles and supplements having little empirical support. Me, I go for a run in the sunshine. I’m not filling my body with those poisons! 🤣
I had the AstraZeneca vaccine as part of a volunteering role at a vaccination hub – not an RNA vaccine, but DNA. My kids had Pfizer. We’re having an antibody-off!
I had Pfizer-BioNTech, my Mom had AZ, wife had Moderna.
Expect that the kids may get JNJ.
It’s a smorgasbord!
Not in bloody France it isn’t. I shall be addressing a stern note to M. Macron shortly.
He has rather given succour to the ‘vaccine hesitant’ (who need no encouragement!). Caution is of course entirely legitimate. But the news on efficacy, reducing hospitalisations and lowering transmission is all good – including in the elderly. Of course we can never rule out long term effects, but there’s a certain finality of some of the long term effects of Covid!
Fortunately, there is no link between Creation and biology either, in ‘Just-declare-stuff’ World.
In the meantime, out in nutville:
Joe G ‘s reading is improving, only too slowly. Now he got my monicker right, after calling me Alan a few hundred times.
Of course it includes the variation. That doesn’t mean that it includes, or even mandates, what the source of such variation should be. Again, the source of such variation can be biased or even deterministic. By the way, biased and deterministic are not synonyms with “telic”. Oh, and just to try and calm you down a bit. Yes, natural selection can happen even when mutations are purposefully introduced by people. Swallow that one Joey.
Poor Joe G insists on being unable to read for comprehension! He went, again, for quotes as if this was about some priesthood pronunciations, despite I told him it’s about thinking. Isn’t that cute? Joe G wanted me to have something to laugh at. Thanks Joe.
Either way Joe G, you failed to read your source properly. “A result of”, doesn’t mean “is composed of”. Selection proper is the part that reads: “non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals”. I’d invite you to think about it, but the tears in your eyes, because of that unyielding anger, won’t let you see much of what I’m writing, as it happened before.
More of the same mistake.
It seems that it’s you who didn’t get it.
Anyway, maybe google can help.
For example, the very first result reads:
See that? “One of.” “Along with” means that there’s other mechanisms. See the first one in the list of those other mechanisms? What does it say Joe G? Come on! You can do it! Yes! “mutation”! That wasn’t so hard now, was it?
The one to the side, the wikipedia one:
See? Natural selection is due to, but not “the same as,” differences in phenotype.
You seem to care. Otherwise you wouldn’t be so angry.
You’re missing the part where you show they’re “mandated” to be chance events. So far you seem to insist on mistaking chance events for non-telic events.
Those words are there Joe G, because Mayr, like me, thought that he could not call them absolutely, mandatorily, “chance events” if they were constrained. So I’m right and you’re wrong. Sorry.
Again, the opposite of chance events is not telic events. Both, deterministic and biased events would not qualify as “chance events” Joe G. You are thinking, if thinking is the right word, under the constraints of a false dichotomy.
Again, the false dichotomy.
Well actually, you provided the evidence. The fact that I had no need to hunt for quotes is precisely because I’m not an ignorant ass, as you might understand.
Nah! You edited it because you noticed your poor thinking and preferred to hide it. Did you know that somewhere in the bible there’s something about the beam in thy own eye? What do you think it means Joe G?
But mutations as biased or as deterministic events would do that all right.
It’s you who doesn’t understand that there’s all kinds of in-betweens. That events having a direction don’t need to be “telic.” They can be either biased or deterministic. No intentions necessary.
Radioactivity increases the number of mutations occurring and introduces biases in the kinds of mutations produced. Like Mayr, I wouldn’t call those “chance events,” let alone “mandated” to be so.
There’s a couple ways to understand this definition Joe G. It seems obvious, however, that both Mayr and me have something in mind that differs from whatever you have in mind.
Already done. Read.
Not from “evolution”. Proved fact!
But you’re not denying either. Not with facts anyway.
Just because your stupid theory claims “fitness” eventually drives growth, it doesn’t mean that growth proves “fitness”. Go read ‘affirming the consequent’ again.
You actually need to show the actual “fitness” actually! Get it? Which is so central to the stupid theory that everything crumbles without it. Go on. I’m waiting.
This is no fucking answer. But why? Because you’d have to admit 100% of atheists believe abiogenesis and 99.x% of abiogenesis supporters are atheists. Shame on you. Coward.
You don’t know for a fact that “chemical processes  have given rise to life”. Let alone that a process – any process – requires an intelligent agent that designs and makes it happen.
And that’s the abomination we need to correct.
Your “reply” is NOT a reply to my comment. Now you’re attempting to cover your embarrassed silence which is hilarious in the extreme.
Last I checked, “heritable characters” doesn’t prove “evolution”. You too need to brush up on ‘affirming the consequent’… if you even got it in the first place which I very much doubt.
Yes, run to your mommy naughty boy. You’ll be back for more beating in no time. But why? Why do you keep coming back with a loosing hand???
Then you admit no link between biology and “evolution”/abiogenesis? And what do you do about the burden being on he that declares it?!? Yes, strip all “evolution”/abiogenesis from the biology books. They don’t belong.
Also, entropy forbids Creation.
As I said, one day he’ll bite our legs off, just you wait!
OK, can’t resist: 😉
You left out an important word: RELATIVE. In the LTEE the relative growth rate of the wild type and the variants are compared by growing them together in the same niche environment. So the relative growth rate tells us which is more fit in that environment, and by measuring the increase in numbers this can be assigned an actual figure. Hence the graph showing an exponentially improving (in the sense of improvements in fitness at first rapid then less) relative fitness in the Lenski et al. papers.
There’s no circularity there.
Do you live in the nineteenth century? There are no absolutes. Everything is relative (and connected, by the way).
Yes, indeed. So now you have disproved ‘evolution’ where does biology come from?
You don’t seem to understand that in order to replace evolution you have to replace it with something else!
Until you can say what that something else is and show how it fits the observed data better then “evolution” it’s logical to stick with ‘evolution’ for now.
So we all know already that you don’t think evolution did it.
So what did do it nonlin? Or are you afraid to say?
You are the one that seems to be afraid to say what you actually believe. Everyone else is happy to say how they think evolution works and explain it to you. But you are the only person here arguing in a totally negative way.
We know what you think is wrong already, but what do you think is right?
A losing hand is better than no hand at all, it might become a winner one day. And you’ve got literally nothing. No cards, no hand to play. All you have is the belief that the hand is losing, when you don’t even have any cards at all yourself.
If you think god did it, make Jesus proud and just say as much.
Isn’t it cute, if not hypocritical, that Nonlin “missed” an important word after putting something in bold because he thought Corneel missed something?
Of course changes in heritable characters don’t “prove” evolution, you poor mentally addled simpleton, they are evolution.
Talking to the mirror again little monkey?
Hey Joe G! Nice to hear from you again!
I see that comprehension as such is problematic for you. Not just the reading. Let me try and help you a bit, but pay closer attention. First and foremost, calm down. It seems like you’re blind with anger:
Sorry. No. If the mutations are induced they’re not “chance events.” They’re induced mutations. Then again, even if the mutations were put specifically, as in by site-directed mutagenesis, natural selection wouldn’t care one bit. Do you know why? Because, as youi insist on telling me, natural selection is blind, even blind to the source of those mutations.
You have to finish reading before jumping to conclusions Joe G. Natural selection could not operate if there’s nothing to select. So, it includes variation in that sense, not in the sense of the how that variation is introduced. Variation is necessary, the source of such variation is not part of the concept.
Got it now my dear friend?
You mean the one you cannot read properly? The one where there’s an almost and an except? Maybe take that dictionary and look for the meaning of “almost” and “except.” After all, you think you know how to use a dictionary, don’t you?
I know that’s what you wanted to show, but you failed miserably, as I demonstrated. Your original claim was that natural selection “mandates” mutations to be chance events. So far you’ve shown what I already told you: that there’s a need for variation in order to have something to select, but you failed with the “mandates”, because, again, natural selection is not about the source of such variation, it’s what happens because there’s variation.
Got it now my dear friend?
By a mere chance event, you missed this part Joe G:
It isn’t the one and only definition Joe G. Not being planned is but one of the parts of the one definition you decided to quote. I mean, the one you happened to quote by a mere accident. There’s others.
Let me exemplify. The first definition in the Merriam-Webster is:
So, if there’s an observable cause, it’s no longer chance, as in not being merely random or unexpected or unpredictable. This is why Mayr said “almost” and “except”, because if there’s constraints, then it cannot be claimed to be absolutely, mandatorily, by chance. See how easy that was?
Nope. From the context that’s not the appropriate definition Joe G, as Mayr’s usage implies, and as I explained.
I see words there that have nothing to do with telic Joe G. Did you fail to read them? The second, for example, is “certainty”. There’s certainty that exposure to some radiation wavelengths will induce more of some specific mutations than others.
Or what about this one: “concomitant.” A high rate of biased mutations is concomitant with some types of radiation.
If he did, he wouldn’t have written “almost” and “except.”
Calling it “clarifying,” when your intention was to hide your blunder is dishonest Joe G. Doubling down on the deception doubles down on the dishonesty. Triple-ing down on the deception, well. You get the idea. Stop it already, and stop pretending to call other people liars, because, clearly, the beam in thy own eye and all that. The Bible tells you so. I’m just reminding you where that came from. In case you’ve forgotten. Though it’s possible you never read it, blind with rage as you normally are.
Hahahaaa! “Mayr agrees with me”. Now, there’s a blast from the past. Joe G is the most repetitious, tic-laden anti-evo I’ve encountered – though nonlin is giving him a run for his money, and Kairosfocus on one of his more ‘oil of ad hominem’ days. Plus ça change.
Plus c’est la même chose.
Magic words (brain farts) that won’t save “evolution”:
1. “Relative”, sorry “RELATIVE”. As in “relative growth rate tells us which is more fit”. Nope. Nothing changes. That too is affirming the consequent. Aside from the fact relative growth is derived from growth, so contains less information.
2. “Change” as in “change in heritable characters”. Same drill.
Another dummy “makes a case” for keeping something known false because he’s not prepared to accept an alternative. And he never will. Who cares?
Can you prove it?
What saves evolutionary theory is it works. Magic words weren’t needed for the wheel. It just works. Don’t like the wheel? Find a better solution.
Haha. To the same standard you did re: abiogenesis, for example? Easy peasy. Let’s see: Creation is decay in reverse, you see, and … well, that’s pretty much it!
(There is a much better argument, but given your proven inability to grasp what entropy means in the thermodynamic sense, you would not understand it.)
I was thinking it was quite some time after Lenski first set up the LTEE (1988) till I first heard about it in 2008. It was Andrew Schafly that brought it to my attention, IIRC.
Well, what is that alternative? Why won’t you say?
Evolution doesn’t need saving. It happens whether we want it or not. It happens despite Nonlin’s imaginary powers to stop it by being a stubborn uneducable simpleton, who didn’t even know that RNA is copied from DNA and DNA from RNA, all the time, in nature.
Relative growth is a measure of fitness for these bacteria because that’s how they outcompete each other: by growth. Your problem with fitness is that you want a single, simple, and absolute definition, just because you don’t want to understand that it depends on how individuals outcompete other individuals in their population.
It seems like you don’t know what affirming the consequent means. It doesn’t mean using what you need to use to represent fitness, according to the circumstances.
You could choose better ways to play the fool than this. Comparing growth rates requires the information of several growth rates. Otherwise there’s nothing to compare, obviously. Therefore, they’d contain more information than a single growth rate would. However, the amount of information in the measure doesn’t matter, as long as the measure represents what makes the individuals more competitive. This is so obvious it’s amazing that you don’t understand how incredibly stupid you look by trying to deny it. Complaining that the measure contains less information than its foundational measure is just idle stupidity.
Same drill? Are you saying that there’s no changes in heritable characters simpleton? If so, well, your ignorance doesn’t change the facts. Same drill indeed, in terms of your ignorance and unbelievable stupidity.
Nonlin is embarrassed that he fights evolution, armed with the amazing power of his infallible ignorance and incoherence, but has nothing but fantasy to substitute it. Nonlin’s afraid that confessing might break the spell he’s under, that he would wake up only to see that he’s naked.
Hey happy Joe G!
I see you’re still having trouble, both understanding conceptual issues, language, context, and Matthew 7:3-5 (linked for your convenience, no thanks necessary, you’re welcome).
Earth to Joe G, eliminating is a form of selection. Outcompetition is also a form of selection. Differential survival is also a form of selection. To get this you need to be willing to understand, rather than engage on mere denialism, just because you don’t like the idea that evolution happens.
It needs variation to have something to select Joe G. It doesn’t include the source of variation. This is the hundredth time I repeat and you fail to understand. Something wrong with your eyes? Too blind with rage?
Nobody is perfect. (If that’s actually what Mayr wrote, since it seems you’re not beyond hiding your mistakes by convenient editorial changes.)
Nope. It just means that the processes are necessary for NS to happen, not that they’re part of it. To select something we need to have different things, variation. That doesn’t mean that selection won’t happen if the variation has different sources.
You need to understand the context in order to understand which definition is under consideration. That way you’d be able to understand why good Ernst wrote “almost” and “except.”
You’re not understanding Joe G. I have insisted that the opposite of chance is not “telic”. So, if I doubt that something was a chance event, that doesn’t mean I think it was “planned.” Running a red light increases the probability of a crash. So the crash is not a chance event, it’s the result of a risky mistake.
So you didn’t see the ones I exemplified? Blind with rage, right?
Of course context matters. It’s not me who’s missing it. Check it out again:
See? “Almost exclusively a chance phenomenon” means not completely a chance phenomenon. The context agrees with who Joe G? Come on! You can do it! Yes! Me! Not good to try and read a quoye while blind with rage.
I don’t? Seems like I’m doing it all the time. Here it goes again: you changed it to try and hide your blunder. See? It’s not too hard.
I didn’t say that it “includes” mutations that happened by design. I said it happens even if the mutations happened by design. You truly don’t understand the difference between the source of variation and the selection from such variation, do you?
Natural selection is independent on how the mutations happened Joe G. If we release mutants into the wild, what happens to them is up to what they find in nature.
NS doesn’t have such requirements. It wasn’t proposed to mimic a designer. It was proposed to try and understand the meaning of a lot of data collected by several naturalists about the distribution and variety of life.
Nope. The point was to explain the origin of species by divergence from prior species.
When there was no designers, of course the source of variation didn’t include designers. But today it does. Those designers are part of nature. I don’t see the problem. Either way, NS remains being natural, and remains happening regardless of your outbursts of mindless, blinding, rage.
It is that simple. Natural selection does care about the source of variation, moron.
Didn’t you say that it was blind? Which is it then? Look, natural selection is non-sentient. So, it truly doesn’t care one way or another. It just happens.
I don’t care about designer mimics.
Have a great day!
Just in case anyone can’t get enough of this, there is a parallel** discussion going on at Peaceful Science.
** but possibly non-Euclidean.
“Evolution” is the wheel? See below.
And folks, that’s the level of atheist “science”. IOW, abysmal.
Already did. But you’re always one or a thousand steps behind.
You mean Peaceful Censorship? Fuck that pompous imbecile’s attempt to keep the truth under wraps. I’d rather deal with the TSZ morons. For a while at least.
Since that was an exemplar to your own “standards,” it’s just beautiful that you’d call it abysmal. That pain in your foot? You shot yourself there.
Censoring little simpletons like yourself is “keeping the truth under wraps”? Only if the truth kept under wraps is that you’re an uneducable little monkey who offers nothing but incoherence and childish insults.
Failure to understand what everybody here is trying to explain to you makes you the moron little monkey.
Leaving at last? Good riddance. Only your mother can pretend to love your idiocy simpleton. So good for you to run back to her.
Given that I took the same approach as you, with the origination of life as the reverse of its decay, that’s a heartwarming self-criticism.
So let’s just see what Creation model you subscribe to, as this would affect the role of entropy. Do you think
1) Creation involved the instantiation of organismal atoms de novo, in the appropriate configuration.
2) Creation involved the rearrangement of pre-existing atoms and energy.
3) Something else.
why not link to it then nonlin, show that I’m wrong and everyone else is also who who things you’ve not said.
Where on your site is your alternative?
It seems that your ‘alternative’ is that an all powerful god did it? Is that it? No wonder we all missed it then, those couple of words you want to replace hundreds of textbooks with.