quote]Ok, I'll bite. Which scientist used Creationism to predict what and what was the result and can I use it?[/quote]
This is done daily so I don't know exactly what you want. I think its some sort of a joke to make fun of me. There are scientists who believe in evolution and when they interpret their data they say "ah ha! evolution!" and there are scientists who believe in evolution and when they interpret their data they say "ah ha! creation!" Which one is correct?
The trick, then, is in getting the new gene into the bacteria. The easiest way is to splice the gene into a plasmid -- a small ring of DNA that bacteria often pass to one another in a primitive form of sex. Scientists have developed very precise tools for cutting standard plasmids and splicing new genes into them. A sample of bacteria is then "infected" with the plasmid, and some of them take up the plasmid and incorporate the new gene into their DNA. To separate the infected from the uninfected, the plasmid also contains a gene giving the bacteria immunity to a certain antibiotic. By treating the sample with the antibiotic, all of the cells that did not take up the plasmid are killed. Now a new strain of insulin-producing E. coli bacteria can be cultured in bulk to create insulin.
As you can see the bacteria would use the new gene or not, by chance. But since the environment required bacteria to have the new gene to survive, only those bacteria with the code survived. That is what the theory of evolution predicted ("survival of the fittest") and that is what happened.
If the theory of evolution were not true, not only those cells fit to survive would have survived, but the others too. But that didn't happen.
What did happen was that while acceptance of the gene was based on chance, the survival of only those bacteria that did have the gene was NOT based on chance. It was predictable and it was predicted by Darwinian theory.
You can claim that that wasn't evolution, and maybe it wasn't "evolution" in the sense that Creationists use the word (Creationist "evolution" is very differen from Darwinian theory); but it is evolution in the scientific sense.
And the same mechanism explains how modified genes survive or die out in the real world as well.
This is all nice. I know how plasmids work. But you didn't answer my question: How has EVOLUTION been used to breed bacteria to produce insulin? Survival of the fittest is an accepted scientific fact on both sides, so don't say that. If both models make the same prediction you can't say that one is better than the other.
The theory of evolution predicts that those lifeforms fittest to survive will survive.
And so does biblical creation.
That simple formula explains how lifeforms with modified genes can outbreed lifeforms with the original or differently-modified genes. It explains how changes happened in the past and it explains how changes will come out in the lab and the future.
It doesn't explain what those changes are or how life started. It merely claims that changes that do happen have a certain effect.
Now you've just switched your wording from "predict" to "explain." Which one is it? If it is explaining things then it is not a theory. It is an interpretation, which is what I've been saying all along. Oh yeah, and since we are still playing the symantics game, what "simple formula" are you talking about? Do you mean that there is a mathematical formula that we can use to apply to natural selection to prove evolution.. that'd be neat.
And it's testable and fossils confirm that it has happened in the past over millions of years.
You haven't explained how it testable. You only state that it is. And how have "fossils confirmed that it has happened in the past over millions of years?"
1. I have equated evolution with science because evolution is a scientific theory. And I have equate Creationism with religion because Creatonism is religion.
It is my bias that evolution currently qualifies as a religion- a belief system that relies heavily on the supernatural. When proof of it comes to be, we can remove the religion title from evolution.
Of course not. But as I said before, evolution doesn't make any claims about how life is created. So I suppose we can finally ignore that question. Evolution has as much to do with the creation of life itself as the prophet Muhammed has with Christianity.
Then you disagree with the "great" Richard Dawkins here who has repeatedly said that evolution needs to answer the origins question (many others have said the same thing) and that Christianity makes scientific claims.
(And I promise you, if you continue to pretend that you were never told that evolution is not about the creation of life, I will ALWAYS, from now on, pretend that Islam and Christianity are the same, even if you tell me that Muhammed is not a Christian prophet! I will happily write articles about how Islam and Christianity are the same, and, boy, can I promise you that I know enough about both and about ancient middle-eastern texts to come up with some pretty good stories about that. SO better be careful with how far you think you can carry this tactic of yours.)
Is that a threat? It doesn't bother me as you say what you want anyhow...sometimes it's based on fact, and sometimes on opinion so what would be the diff here? The thing is Leauki, I know you know better so go ahead. I won't respond to it. You'd just be wasting your time anyhow and looking foolish in the process...and you know it.
I can drop a hammer from the top of a building and it will fall. Yes.
And similarly, I can keep two populations of fruitflies apart from each other for a few generations and observe that they do indeed change and that genes occasionally modify, including and up to changes that make the two populations into two different species (who cannot interbreed).
Ok, but this doesn't prove evolution when both creation science and evolution make this claim.
The problem with gravity is that I am sitting at a table with air around me, and the air molecules don't seem to know about the theory that claims that they should fall down because they have weight and there is a planet beneath me.
Huh? There is gravitational force on the oxygen, nitrogen, etc around you. That's why the atmosphere is thinner the further away from earth you go. So I don't get this point.