A growing body of evidence implicates environmental organisms as reservoirs of these resistance genes; however, the role of anthropogenic use of antibiotics in the emergence of these genes is controversial. We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics. … This supports a growing understanding that antibiotic resistance is natural, ancient, and hard wired in the microbial pangenome.
This natural antibiotic resistance predates our use of antibiotics and could simultaneously (i) explain how such resistance appears rapidly after the introduction of a new antibiotic and (ii) relieve evolutionists of one of their already ridiculous arguments:
Clinical microbiologists have been perplexed for the longest time. When you bring a new antibiotic into the hospital, resistance inevitably appears shortly thereafter, within months to years. It’s still a big question: Where is this coming from. Almost no one thought to look at other bacteria, the ones that don’t necessarily cause disease.
Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution.
a few notes:
ReplyDeleteThis following study demonstrated that bacteria which had gained antibiotic resistance by mutation are less fit than wild type bacteria::
Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008
Excerpt: Therefore, in order to simulate competition in the wild, bacteria must be grown on minimal media. Minimal media mimics better what bacteria experience in a natural environment over a period of time. This is the place where fitness can be accurately assessed. Given a rich media, they grow about the same.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore
Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology
Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/thank_goodness_the_ncse_is_wro.html
Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248
List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
Also of note; there appears to be a in-built (designed) mechanism, which kicks in during starvation, which allows wild type bacteria to more robustly resist antibiotics than 'well fed' bacteria;
Starving bacteria fight antibiotics harder? - November 2011
http://www.uncommondescent.com/news/starving-bacteria-fight-antibiotics-harder/
CH follows the same tired formula:
ReplyDelete1. Find an interesting scientific discovery.
2. Surround it with his own strawman claims, misrepresentations, and outright lies.
3. Declare that evil evolution must be wrong
4. Deposit his DI paycheck.
Of course this new discovery doesn't threaten the ToE in the least. All is does is give new insight as to how bacteria can develop resistance to new antibacterial drugs so quicky. Turns out that in many cases the basic mechanisms for conferring resistance had already evolved millions of years before, and the bacteria had the ability to draw on this supply of defenses.
Here is a better write up by a real scientist
Isolated for millions of years, cave bacteria resist modern antibiotics
For those who still insist these genes were Intelligently Designed, have you thought through the ramifications? Like Behe did with his malaria parasite, you are now claiming that the Designer deliberately produced genes specifically designed to help kill us.
Is that the kind of Designer you want everyone to worship?
As Thorton so clearly illustrates, the Theology of Darwinism raises its ugly head once again:
DeleteCharles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011
Excerpt: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
1. Human begins are not justfied in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures.
4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function.
5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life.
8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his 'excellent' lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, 'Darwin On Trial', in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would be expected to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue to support a supposedly well supported scientific theory:
Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw
And the theological 'bad design' argument, which Darwinists unwittingly continually use to try to make their case, is actually its own independent discipline of study within Theology itself called Theodicy:
Is Your Bod Flawed by God? - Feb. 2010
Excerpt: Theodicy (the discipline in Theism of reconciling natural evil with a good God) might be a problem for 19th-century deism and simplistic natural theology, but not for Biblical theology. It was not a problem for Jesus Christ, who was certainly not oblivious to the blind, the deaf, the lepers and the lame around him. It was not a problem for Paul, who spoke of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain till the coming redemption of all things (Romans 8).
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100214a
Little do most atheists realize that the existence of evil itself necessitates the existence of Good. i.e. you cannot disprove God by pointing to evil. All a atheist does when he points to evil in this world is to point out the fact that this world is not perfectly good, Yet Christianity never claimed we were in heaven in the first place. i.e. by pointing to evil (the absence of good), the atheist actually affirms the Christian belief that we are in a fallen world.
William Lane Craig - Moral Relativism - Cruel Logic - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347138/
Thorton, here is your argument in a nutshell:
DeleteYouTube- Albert Einstein - Does Evil Exist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0vzGJAg1aw
Thorton:
DeleteCH follows the same tired formula: ...
For those who still insist these genes were Intelligently Designed, have you thought through the ramifications? Like Behe did with his malaria parasite, you are now claiming that the Designer deliberately produced genes specifically designed to help kill us.
Is that the kind of Designer you want everyone to worship?
So evolution really is a fact?
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteSo evolution really is a fact?
The word 'evolution' can refer to either the theory or the fact. Get over the dishonest equivocation and define how you are using the word and I'll tell you.
Your also didn't answer my question - what should we think about a 'Designer' who keeps creating ways to kill us?
CH: So evolution really is a fact?
DeleteDo you want us to take your theory seriously or not? Please make up your mind.
If you do, this requires us assume your theory is true, in reality, and that all observations should conform to it, for the purpose of criticism. This includes whether a theory is internally constant based on empirical observations.
This what Thorton just did when he mentioned the ramifications of your theory.
Specify, rather than take a narrow, parochial view, we include all observations, including those observations that genes can adapt resistance to drugs. And should those observations conform to this theory, then this supposed designer would have deliberate produced genes specifically to help kill us.
However, rather than criticize the specific ramifications or how Thorton arrived at them, you objected to the idea of applying criticism to this theory. At all. Period. As if you think it's somehow beyond criticism, including criticism for internal constancy of the theory itself.
For example, let's take the hypothetical claim that an internal combustion engine (ICE) cannot achieve more than 90% efficiency because the spark plug is connected the crankshaft.
Before we even need to bother firing up any ICE to test it's efficiency, empirical observations indicate not all ICEs even have spark plugs. A diesel engine is an iCE, yet it uses a glow plug, rather than a spark plug, to ignite it's fuel. And those IECs that due use spark plugs, they are not directly connected to the crankshaft.
So, while it might be true that an ICE cannot obtain more than 90% efficiency, we certainly should reach this conclusion based on this hypothetical theory as it's been found to contain errors based on empirical observations.
In the absence of some other theory, It's neither true, nor is it false. Rather, it reverts back a mere logical possibility. And we discard it, just as we do with a near infinite number of mere possibilities, every day in every field.
Why is your designer any different?
Bonobo face:
DeleteIs that the kind of Designer you want everyone to worship?
Wow. Atheists are the one group with the most anger directed against a God that they supposedly don't believe in, a God that they made up.
It is true that religion drives science and it matters. But bonobo face is driven by a psychotic hatred against a caricature of God that he/she/it invented. Here's bonobo face's God metaphysics:
"I hate this God that I invented, therefore evolution is true."
or
"The more I promote evolution, the more I can show this made-up God that I hate him."
or
"The more I promote evolution, the more I can show those who believe in this made-up God that I hate them."
ahahaha...
What a psycho cry baby.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis you have some severe mental problems. You really need professional psychiatric help.
DeleteMental health advice from a psycho. How interesting. LOL.
Deletebornagain77 Apr 14, 2012 09:00 AM
ReplyDelete[...]
Little do most atheists realize that the existence of evil itself necessitates the existence of Good. i.e. you cannot disprove God by pointing to evil. All a atheist does when he points to evil in this world is to point out the fact that this world is not perfectly good, Yet Christianity never claimed we were in heaven in the first place. i.e. by pointing to evil (the absence of good), the atheist actually affirms the Christian belief that we are in a fallen world.
William Lane Craig - Moral Relativism - Cruel Logic - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347138
Craig is fortunate to be such a good public speaker. On paper, his arguments look far less impressive.
What he sidesteps here is the central charge that can be leveled against the Christian God which is that He created evil or, at the very least, incorporated the potential for it in His creation.
Remember that He created the Universe and everything in it and nothing happens but by His will. That must include evil. It was created by and is knowingly tolerated by God.
Could He have done otherwise? Could He have created a world without evil if He chose? I can't think of any reason why that should be impossible for the all-powerful God of Christianity. Can you?
The second problem that Craig skates around when blaming humanity for its own so-called "fallen" state is that we were designed by God. If Adam and Eve had the capacity for disobedience that is how they were designed. God, being omniscient, must have known exactly what He was doing and how it would turn out.
And what exactly was Adam and Eve's terrible crime? Curiosity. They were tossed out of the Garden of Eden and their descendants cursed to suffer in perpetuity because they were curious about the knowledge of good and evil. Leaving aside the question of whether there was any good reason why they shouldn't know about good and evil, all they were doing was behaving as they had been designed to behave by God. In other words humanity is being punished by God for being exactly what He designed us to be and behaving in ways He must have known about from the very beginning.
Atheists do not need to point to evil to prove that God does not exist. All they have to do is highlight the inherent contradictions in the Christian account of His nature.
Could He have done otherwise? Could He have created a world without (the potential for) evil if He chose? I can't think of any reason why that should be impossible for the all-powerful God of Christianity. Can you?
DeleteIt is logically impossible for a perfectly good Creator to create a creature with true free-will, to have a relationship with, without the possibility of that creature doing evil with his free will. God could have created puppets on a string without true free will, but where is the glory, or the potential for true love, in that?
Serendipitously, Unbelievable Christian radio has Andrew Wilson, an apologist, author and elder at Kings Church Eastbourne on this week. His new book 'If God, Then What?' presents arguments for the existence of God and how the Christian Gospel addresses the issues of suffering and death in the world.
Deletehttp://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={0B1F8B97-6762-4B16-B4A1-39F9F9D48CCE}
While It's off topic, I'll ask the question since you mentioned it..
DeleteWill people have free will in heaven? If so, it would seem that they would also have the possibility of doing evil there. However, this is internally inconsistent with Christian claims about heaven itself.
So, it would seem that one of your assumptions are in error. Which is it?
if the latter, then apparently God can create a creature that has free will, but without the potential for evil, but decided not to? If the former, then it would appear that evil could occur in heaven, at which point the concept of heaven itself seems to be in error.
Perhaps this will help you understand the origination of evil Scott:
DeleteIf God, Why Evil? (Norman Geisler)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtOOPaNmJFY
bornagain77 Apr 14, 2012 11:49 AM
Delete[...]
It is logically impossible for a perfectly good Creator to create a creature with true free-will, to have a relationship with, without the possibility of that creature doing evil with his free will. God could have created puppets on a string without true free will, but where is the glory, or the potential for true love, in that?
At a simple level free will simply means 'could have chosen to do otherwise', in other words, free to chose between at least two options. To put it yet another way, the range of available options does not need to be large for us to have the freedom to choose between them.
There is no reason why God could not have chosen to create a world in which His creatures had the option to choose not to love him but which still lacked any option to do evil.
Your more fundamental problem is to explain not just why a being like the Christian God chose to create a Universe at this time but why did He bother to do it at all.
Remember that, amongst other things, God is held to be the Uncaused First Cause of everything. The Universe had a beginning, He did not. Such a God is a necessary being - that is in the philosophical sense of being not contingent upon, not dependent on, anything outside of itself. It is entirely self-contained and self-sufficient. By that definition, it has no need of a loving relationship of beings apart from itself - all its needs are met internally - so it has no reason to create a Universe like ours and populate it with beings like ourselves who can worship it.
If God can defeat or quarantine evil, while people still have free will in heaven, then he could have created beings that have free will without the ability to do evil.
DeleteFirst, as Hitchens pointed out, the speaker describes heaven as if it's North Korea, in that anyone who could not sit though an hour of praising God couldn't stand an eternity of praising God. But what does praising God have to do with goodness?
You're approaching the question from the naive assumption that people are either evil or good, and that their alignment is somehow linked to a belief that some perfect being exists and that they want that being's will to come to pass, even if they are weak and occasionally do evil things.
However, if someone does't believe a perfectly good being exists, then they cannot desire it's nonexistent perfectly good will to come to pass. That would be irrational. Not to mention it's unclear exactly what that entails, in that we supposedly cannot know what how perfect goodness comes out of evil.
So, you have God choosing to remove a weakness to do evil things based on a naive assumption that believing in an invisible perfect good being exits is a criteria for whether someone's will is ultimately good or evil. However, this simply doesn't follow. Rather, it's a claim made by the Bible itself.
I'm an optimist in the sense that evil is the absence of knowledge. Specifically, people do not make bad decisions because they are "evil", but they are ignorant as to what options they have and how their actions will effect others and even themselves. They do not know how to obtain win-win outcomes. Nor do they know how win-loose outcomes actually hurt themselves in ways they cannot predict and understand.
For example, in a comprehensible universe, unless it is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevents us from doing something is knowing how. This includes things such as curing diseases, reducing suffering, improving our quality of life, etc. Yet, God supposedly intelligently and intentionally designed us as finite beings and withholds his knowledge from us.
We want these things, and if the universe is comprehensible, they are within our ability to bring about. But we no not yet know how to obtain them. So, the question is, why is this the case?
In other words, the entire idea of supernatural evil seems to hinge on the belief that we live in a finite bubble of explicably, in that some evils are simply beyond comprehension. But, again, this does not follow.
Ancient human beings, and their ancestors, were faced with the problem of why good things happen to some people, but not others. Given that the knew essentially nothing about how the world worked at the time, they "solved" this problem by assuming that gods existed in some supernatural realm, which eventually evolved to contain good and evil.
However, that time has passed. We're no longer completely ignorant.
I'd note there are people with brains that are damaged to the extent they incapable of connecting the dots between their actions and their effect on the well being of themselves and others. As such, they are compelled to make choices which result in loose-loose scenarios that we consider 'evil'. However, we can explain this in the same way as people who are born tone death, color blind or having a learning disability, rather than being under the influence of some sort of supernatural force.
Ian:
ReplyDeleteAtheists do not need to point to evil to prove that God does not exist. All they have to do is highlight the inherent contradictions in the Christian account of His nature.
Judaism and Islam too, right?
Hunter misses yet again. The evolution of antibiotic resistance can be observed in the lab in isolated cell cultures where the whole culture was grown from a single cell with a single genome and without antibiotic resistance. Thus de novo resistance evolves all the time, and quite easily.
ReplyDeleteIf the above is so, we should also expect that it has happened throughout evolutionary history. Which we also see evidence of. Does Hunter really think he is achieving anything at all except providing entertainment for the 5 of us on the blogosphere that for some bizarre reason enjoy watching the antics of creationists?
and yet contrary to what Nick would have gullible people believe,,,:
DeleteIs Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248
List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
,,, We find antibiotic resistance is actually proof for Genetic Entropy not neo-Darwinian evolution!
Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality
http://vimeo.com/35088933
How would bacteria allegedly evolve resistance to antibiotics they hadn't come in contact with AND retain that trait for allegedly millions of years? Especially since natural selection wouldn't be a factor unless the manufactured antibiotics we have today were all present in the cave.
ReplyDeleteAmazing that no mutation affected that resistance in all this time, huh? Oh well, la dee dah...no need to worry about how that hurts the darwinian myth, let's make plans for darwin day celebrations.
So far, darwinism thinking has slowed scientific progress by:
assuming dinosaurs died out 70 million years ago, only to later find SOFT proteins present in fossils (by accident of course)
claiming most of our genome was 'junk', only to learn later that much of what they called 'junk' actually serves important functions
claiming that we had 180 vestigial organs, that number is now down to almost ZERO (funny how scientific evidence keeps disproving previous darwinian claims)
and the latest - believing that antibiotic resistance was a recently evolved trait as opposed to it being 'hard-wired' into the bacteria as new evidence shows (aka Intelligent Design)
And they have the gall to call their darwinian myth a 'fact'?!?!?
National Valium
ReplyDeleteassuming dinosaurs died out 70 million years ago, only to later find SOFT proteins present in fossils (by accident of course)
What in the world is a SOFT protein? As opposed to a HARD protein?
claiming most of our genome was 'junk', only to learn later that much of what they called 'junk' actually serves important functions
What is the real scientific meaning of the term 'junk' DNA? HINT: it isn't 'has no function'.
claiming that we had 180 vestigial organs, that number is now down to almost ZERO (funny how scientific evidence keeps disproving previous darwinian claims)
What does the term 'vestigial' mean? HINT: it doesn't mean 'useless'.
and the latest - believing that antibiotic resistance was a recently evolved trait as opposed to it being 'hard-wired' into the bacteria as new evidence shows (aka Intelligent Design)
Why did your Intelligent Designer create genes to try and kill us?
Louis the fruit loop
DeleteWhy does God want to kill you? Because you're an angry and frustrated jackass who cannot see the goodness and awesomeness of God. But first, God just wants to see you live a miserable life. And then you die.
LOL! Gee fruit loop, you're such an elegant spokesman for your religion. I suppose God spoke to you personally and told you He wants everyone to suffer and die.
What else did the voices in your head tell you?
Better yet, what is your explanation as to why "your Intelligent Designer create genes to try and kill us"?
ReplyDeleteSurely, it's logically possible, but so are a near infinite number of other possibilities, which we discard every day in every other field of science.
Without a functional reason to prefer one of a near number of infinite possibilities, advocating one in preference over the others is irrational.
Why should your designer be any different?
Scott, though atheists love to harp on evil so as to try to prove that God does not exist, the fact is that without a absolute standard of good actually existing in reality somewhere it would be absolutely impossible for someone to judge whether something was evil or not. For evil presupposes a way things 'ought' to be, yet atheism presupposes there is no particular way things 'ought' to be, Thus is atheism was true the judgement would be impossible!,, thus the atheists is incoherent in his formulation of the argument from evil, and in reality solidifies the moral argument for God:
Deletenotes:
It is also interesting to point out that this ‘inconsistent identity’, that was pointed out by Alvin Plantinga, which leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to be able to make absolute truth claims for their beliefs, is what also leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to be able to account for objective morality, in that neo-Darwinists cannot maintain a consistent identity towards a stable, unchanging, cause for objective morality within their lives;
The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris' moral argument – William Lane Craig – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE
Stephen Meyer - Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M
Hitler & Darwin, pt. 2: Richard Weikart on Evolutionary Ethics - podcast
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-11-30T15_33_04-08_00
Here is a complete reading of C. S. Lewis's classic book 'Mere Christianity' on youtube. Chapter 3 deals with the reality of the moral law within man.
Mere Christianity - C. S. Lewis - Easy to follow playlist:
http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/mere-christianity/cs-lewis-mere-christianity-toc.php
Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011
(41:00 minute mark – Despite what is commonly believed, of someone being 'good enough' to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code)
http://saddleback.com/mc/m/5e22f/
Objective Morality – The Objections – Frank Turek – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5MWBsPf5pg
This following short video clearly shows, in a rather graphic fashion, the ‘moral dilemma' that atheists face when trying to ground objective morality;
Cruel Logic – video
Description; A brilliant serial killer videotapes his debates with college faculty victims. The topic of his debate with his victim: His moral right to kill them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnI
bornagain77 Apr 14, 2012 06:21 PM
Delete[...]
It is also interesting to point out that this ‘inconsistent identity’, that was pointed out by Alvin Plantinga, which leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to be able to make absolute truth claims for their beliefs, is what also leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to be able to account for objective morality, in that neo-Darwinists cannot maintain a consistent identity towards a stable, unchanging, cause for objective morality within their lives;
The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris' moral argument – William Lane Craig – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE
The theory of evolution is an explanation in biology of how living things have changed and diversified over time. It says nothing about morality. Individual scientists or advocates of the theory comprise both atheists and believers but questions of "absolute truth" in this area are generally left to neo-Paleyist philosophers and theologians like Craig.
Personally, I regard the notion of "objective morality" as incoherent. Either way, it presents much more of a problem for Christian theologians and philosophers than it does for atheists because it runs them straight into the Euthyphro Dilemma.
If what is called "objective morality" is, in practice, anything proclaimed to be such by God this raises two questions. First, in what way are God's claims anything more than just His personal opinion, no different in kind from mine or yours? Second, how can claims about God's morality be squared with the accounts of His behavior in the Old Testament?
On the other hand, if there is an objective morality then God must be bound by it just as much as anyone else. But, again, this must be reconciled with an Old Testament replete with accounts of God behaving in ways which, today, we would condemn as immoral.
Perhaps you can find amongst your collection of C&P quotes and videos something in which Craig addresses these more difficult issues?
Well Ian, if you don't believe in objective morality, but merely 'personal opinion' (moral relativism), then why don't Darwinists stop using evil as a argument against God and just use empirical evidence, as if they had any, since they cannot ground the existence of evil within a materialistic worldview! It is as simple as that!,, But of course you will deny any of that since that is the core foundation upon which Darwinism is built. Perhaps as foundational to establishing Darwinism as deception is!
DeleteAs to Craig addressing this 'difficult issue', it is interesting that Dawkins, in his cowardly refusal to debate Craig, upon Craig's recent tour of the UK, tried to use the argument from evil against God. This tactic to try to cover his cowardice to debate Craig backfired terribly for Dawkins!
DeleteRichard Dawkins Approves Infanticide, not William Lane Craig! (mirror: drcraigvideos)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmodkyJvhFo
edit: Meant to say soft tissue, not soft protein
ReplyDeleteNational Valium
ReplyDeleteedit: Meant to say soft tissue, not soft protein
No one has ever found soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil. What was found were mineralized traces of highly degraded collagens. Creationists spun that into "soft fresh still bleeding dinosaur tissue".
Now what is the real scientific meaning of the term 'junk' DNA?
What is the definition of 'vestigial'?
Why did your Intelligent Designer deliberately create genes to try and kill us?
Thornton said: No one has ever found soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil. What was found were mineralized traces of highly degraded collagens.
DeleteDon't forget the blood vessels.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090501-oldest-dinosaur-proteins.html
Now what is the real scientific meaning of the term 'junk' DNA?
Has no function...leftover from alleged evolution. This has been DISproven.
What is the definition of 'vestigial'?
Biology - a degenerate or imperfectly developed organ or structure that has little or no utility, but that in an earlier stage of the individual or in preceding evolutionary forms of the organism performed a useful function.
So, here's my challenge for you Thornton: Would you be willing to have the 180 vestiges named at one time by evolutionists, removed??? I doubt it. ;-)
There's a reason those 180 alleged vestiges have been reduced to almost zero as we discover more about human biology. Once again, evolutionists, in their rush to proclaim their MYTH as 'fact' have egg on their faces and have to retract their previous claims...but they 'know' ;-) evolution is true.
Why did your Intelligent Designer deliberately create genes to try and kill us?
He didn't...mutations do that and they are caused by the fall of mankind. When Adam and Eve sinned, they brought a curse upon them and their descendents because they allowed death to enter the world.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteIf junk DNA has a function, then how is it evidence for evolution?
If vestigal structures have a function, how are they evidence for evolution?
And conventional theology says that the killer genes are the result of actions taken by Adam and Eve, when they ate from the tree of knowledge.
natschuster
ReplyDeleteIf junk DNA has a function, then how is it evidence for evolution?
The proper term is non-coding DNA. Only a small percentage of non-coding DNA has been identified as having a function. Experiments have been done where large section of it have been removed with no noticeable effect. You tell me why an Intelligent Designer would put in large sections of useless genetic material.
If vestigal structures have a function, how are they evidence for evolution?
Vestigial means having lost or been degraded from the original function. That means the current vestige had to evolve from its original form. Whether or not it picked up a new function is immaterial.
And conventional theology says that the killer genes are the result of actions taken by Adam and Eve, when they ate from the tree of knowledge
Fictional characters from your particular religion have nothing to do with evolutionary biology, or with any science.
Bonobo face:
ReplyDeleteThe proper term is non-coding DNA. Only a small percentage of non-coding DNA has been identified as having a function. Experiments have been done where large section of it have been removed with no noticeable effect.
So? Previous non-coding DNA that were thought to have no function turned out to have a function after all. Just because you don't know what the function is does not mean there isn't any. Get a clue, bonobo face.
You tell me why an Intelligent Designer would put in large sections of useless genetic material.
You really hope with all your heart that junk DNA exists because, being the fixated psycho that you are, you want to gloat over Christians every chance you get. The problem is, if they took out the DNA that codes for your evolutionist brain, it would turn out to have no effect either.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis the fruit loop
DeleteYou really hope with all your heart that junk DNA exists because, being the fixated psycho that you are, you want to gloat over Christians every chance you get.
That's right fruit loop. All over the world every day millions of scientists go to work driven by the desire to discredit and gloat over Christianity.
Go get professional help. Your paranoid delusions are way out of control.
You Darwinists are not scientists. You are third rate superstitious religionists who worship dirt and the power of dirt to create life on its own. You are a ridiculous cult.
DeleteNobody needs evolutionary crap to design computers, cars and airplanes.
Stop equating yourself with science, bonobo face. Evolution is pure chicken feather voodoo science and you're just a root doctor.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't 'disprove evolution.' It demonstrates that yet another supposed line of evidence is in reality no such thing. To be disproved a thing must first have the appearance of having been proved.
It's amazing how quickly you declare a long-term icon of evolution to be irrelevant. For decades antibiotic resistance has been the go-to evidence of darwinian evolution that rolls from everyone's tongues, and yet you'd have us believe that it's not important and never was. Of course it isn't and wasn't, but not for the reasons you think. Dogma, unlike scientific knowledge, is immune to changing evidence. The difference between scientific dogma and religious dogma is that the scientific must continually adapt new defenses to the antibiotics of truth and reason. How ironic.
Speaking of following tired patterns, your repetitious name-calling and dismissal of sound reason without basis ('That's stupid, you moron liar') does not go unnoticed.
NickM,
You circularly reason that resistance to antibiotics arises in a darwinian manner by pointing to cases in which bacteria acquired such resistance. It evidently appeared by darwinian evolution which is obvious because most everything appears by darwinian evolution, which is obvious because of all the things that obviously arose by darwinian evolution.
Deletebadwiring Apr 15, 2012 05:04 AM
Thorton,
This doesn't 'disprove evolution.' It demonstrates that yet another supposed line of evidence is in reality no such thing. To be disproved a thing must first have the appearance of having been proved.
You should read the paper. This is from the Discussion (the bolding is mine):
Antibiotic resistance is manifested through a number of different mechanisms including target alteration, control of drug influx and efflux, and through highly efficient enzyme-mediated inactivation. Resistance can emerge relatively quickly in the case of some mutations in target genes and there is evidence that antibiotics themselves can promote such mutations [43], [44], [45], [46]; however, resistance to most antibiotics occurs through the aegis of extremely efficient enzymes, efflux proteins and other transport systems that often are highly specialized towards specific antibiotic molecules. Such elements are the result of evolution through natural selection; this therefore implies that antibiotic resistance has a long evolutionary past. A growing body of evidence suggests that non-pathogenic environmental organisms are a reservoir of resistance genes that have the potential to be transferred to pathogens [31], [47], [48]. The problem of antibiotic resistance in clinical settings therefore likely has its origins in the environment.
Ian, this is simply incredible, the quote you cite cites several examples of 'non-random' change (Shapiro) leading to antibiotic resistance, and then without any empirical justification whatsoever they claim these 'non-random' elements are the result of a long evolutionary past.,, Please do tell us, other than the your blind faith that the enzymes did originate totally naturally, exactly what empirical evidence do you have that EVEN ONE protein/enzyme can arise naturally?
DeleteDoug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve Matheson
Excerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/doug_axe_knows_his_work_better035561.html
Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222
bornagain77 Apr 15, 2012 06:32 AM
DeleteIan, this is simply incredible, the quote you cite cites several examples of 'non-random' change (Shapiro) leading to antibiotic resistance, and then without any empirical justification whatsoever they claim these 'non-random' elements are the result of a long evolutionary past.,, Please do tell us, other than the your blind faith that the enzymes did originate totally naturally, exactly what empirical evidence do you have that EVEN ONE protein/enzyme can arise naturally?
I quite agree that evolution is an incredible theory but that's really only a comment on our limited powers of imagination.
On the question of how enzymes might have evolved, you could start with this post on Larry Moran's blog Sandwalk
The evolution of new genes and their new enzymes often takes place after a gene duplication event followed by the adaptation of one or both of the duplicated enzymes to a particular substrate.
Most people think of enzymes as being highly specific for a particular substrate so they see this adaptation as an all-or-none affair involving a fairly drastic change in substrate binding. Creationists, in particular, are prone to this mistaken view of biochemistry so they see the evolution of a new enzyme activity as a difficult process. Sometimes they note that several amino acid substitutions are required to change substrates and they declare that this is beyond the reach of gradual evolution.
I'm going to tell you about the evolution of a new enzyme that has been caught in progress. This example will help you realize that enzymes don't have to be highly specific for a single substrate and it will help you appreciate how easy it is to evolve new substrate specificities from sloppy precursors. That's the way it probably happens in most cases.
As for "non-random change", I assume you're aware that, in evolutionary theory, mutations are only presumed to be random with respect to the fitness of an organism. Before we go any further, what is your understanding of what is meant by 'random', what Shapiro means by 'random' and what case he is putting forward?
Ian, your quote sums it up:
Delete'that's really only a comment on our limited powers of imagination.'
For indeed I have found that evolutionists could care less about actual evidence and in fact have seen them prefer what they can imagine as true instead of what is actually true numerous times.
As to your cite of Moran, number I consider him a extremely hateful and biased person, and number 2 you should cite direct evidence for the origination of a new protein by duplication if you have it instead of relying on such a prejudiced source!
notes:
Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity? - December 2010 -
Excerpt: The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity, 2011
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract
Evolution by Gene Duplication Falsified - December 2010
Excerpt: The various postduplication mechanisms entailing random mutations and recombinations considered were observed to tweak, tinker, copy, cut, divide, and shuffle existing genetic information around, but fell short of generating genuinely distinct and entirely novel functionality. Contrary to Darwin’s view of the plasticity of biological features, successive modification and selection in genes does indeed appear to have real and inherent limits: it can serve to alter the sequence, size, and function of a gene to an extent, but this almost always amounts to a variation on the same theme—as with RNASE1B in colobine monkeys. The conservation of all-important motifs within gene families, such as the homeobox or the MADS-box motif, attests to the fact that gene duplication results in the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original.
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201101.htm#20110103a
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations Douglas D. Axe*
Excerpt: In particular, I use an explicit model of a structured bacterial population, similar to the island model of Maruyama and Kimura, to examine the limits on complex adaptations during the evolution of paralogous genes—genes related by duplication of an ancestral gene. Although substantial functional innovation is thought to be possible within paralogous families, the tight limits on the value of d found here (d ≤ 2 for the maladaptive case, and d ≤ 6 for the neutral case) mean that the mutational jumps in this process cannot have been very large.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4
An Insurmountable Problem for Darwinian Evolution - Gene Duplication - And Minor Transformation of Protein Function - May 2011
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-05-16T17_01_43-07_00
Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum!
Excerpt: Douglas Axe of the Biologic Institute showed in one recent paper in the journal Bio-complexity that the model of gene duplication and recruitment only works if very few changes are required to acquire novel selectable utility or neo-functionalization. If a duplicated gene is neutral (in terms of its cost to the organism), then the maximum number of mutations that a novel innovation in a bacterial population can require is up to six. If the duplicated gene has a slightly negative fitness cost, the maximum number drops to two or fewer (not inclusive of the duplication itself).
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html
The GS (genetic selection) Principle – David L. Abel – 2009
DeleteExcerpt: Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution. Mutations do not produce increased information. Mira et al (65) showed that the amount of coding in DNA actually decreases with evolution of bacterial genomes, not increases. This paper parallels Petrov’s papers starting with (66) showing a net DNA loss with Drosophila evolution (67). Konopka (68) found strong evidence against the contention of Subba Rao et al (69, 70) that information increases with mutations. The information content of the coding regions in DNA does not tend to increase with evolution as hypothesized. Konopka also found Shannon complexity not to be a suitable indicator of evolutionary progress over a wide range of evolving genes. Konopka’s work applies Shannon theory to known functional text. Kok et al. (71) also found that information does not increase in DNA with evolution. As with Konopka, this finding is in the context of the change in mere Shannon uncertainty. The latter is a far more forgiving definition of information than that required for prescriptive information (PI) (21, 22, 33, 72). It is all the more significant that mutations do not program increased PI. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces formal function. No increase in Shannon or Prescriptive information occurs in duplication. What the above papers show is that not even variation of the duplication produces new information, not even Shannon “information.”
http://www.scitopics.com/The_GS_Principle_The_Genetic_Selection_Principle.html
Gene duplication not usually a source of biochemical innovation? - October 2011
Excerpt: Despite a resulting divergence, there remains a distinct preservation of both sequence and functionality among the paralogs. This would indicate that duplicates can be retained by selection for reasons related to their redundant functionality. It also shows that, even when positive selection is inferred in duplicate genes, this may be of a compensatory nature rather than one representing any biochemical innovation.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/culture/gene-duplication-not-usually-a-source-of-biochemical-innovation/
Gene Duplication and the Origin of Novel Biological Information: A Case Study of the Globins - JonathanM - October 2011
Deletehttp://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/gene-duplication-and-the-origin-of-novel-biological-information-a-case-study-of-the-globins/
Genome truncation vs mutational opportunity: can new genes arise via gene duplication?—Part 1 - Royal Truman and Peter Borger
Conclusions: Various evolutionary scenarios were examined by varying parameters such as prokaryote population size, mutational rate, generation times, proportion of population with additional genes, number of duplicate genes and selectivity coefficient favouring genome truncation. Assuming mutations on a duplicate are harmless would permit these to accumulate, but in reality natural selection would systematically remove the descendents of duplication events, drastically limiting both the total number and variety of mutants. Duplicate genes would be created, accumulate at most a very small number of mutations, and then go extinct, again and again. The number of distinct mutational variants generated would be far too small to explain the origin of novel cellular functions. All scenarios using prokaryote populations failed to generate enough mutation to produce novel genes. The most promising approach assumes huge populations would be involved, although subsequently surviving and fixing would now become exceedingly unlikely. Preventing novel gene families from developing denies
nature the necessary infrastructure to produce complex new features. This finding contradicts what is being claimed by evolutionary biologists, which therefore invites other explanations as to the source of genetic complexity to be considered.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_1/j22_1_99-110.pdf
As to "what is your understanding of what is meant by 'random',"
DeleteBlackholes - The neo-Darwinian ‘god of entropic randomness’ which can create all things (at least according to them)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fxhJEGNeEQ_sn4ngQWmeBt1YuyOs8AQcUrzBRo7wISw/edit
badlogic
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't 'disprove evolution.' It demonstrates that yet another supposed line of evidence is in reality no such thing. To be disproved a thing must first have the appearance of having been proved.
LOL! Er...no. Hypotheses can be disproven without ever having given the appearance of being proven. You can hypothesize that eating 20 pizza a day and sitting on your couch will make you an Olympic caliber athlete. That can easily be disproven by trying the experiment, but it was never considered 'proven'.
Is that what passes for sound reasoning in your Creationist world? Yet you wonder why you clowns get laughed at.
For decades antibiotic resistance has been the go-to evidence of darwinian evolution that rolls from everyone's tongues, and yet you'd have us believe that it's not important and never was.
The occurrence of antibiotic resistance is still a classic example of evolution in action. All the new discovery means is that in *some* bacteria evolution had already produced a variation of the same resistance-conferring molecules. You clowns are so desperate to attack the science you ignorantly spin every discovery.
The difference between scientific dogma and religious dogma is that the scientific must continually adapt new defenses to the antibiotics of truth and reason.
Another moron who doesn't understand that science can and does continually refine its understanding based on new evidence.
You circularly reason that resistance to antibiotics arises in a darwinian manner by pointing to cases in which bacteria acquired such resistance. It evidently appeared by darwinian evolution which is obvious because most everything appears by darwinian evolution, which is obvious because of all the things that obviously arose by darwinian evolution
LOL! Another classic example of Creationist "sound reasoning". As NickM pointed out, cases of antibiotic resistance arising in a cell culture that previously had none have been empirically observed to arise through evolutionary mechanisms. All your blustering rhetoric won't change that simple fact. That you feel threatened by scientific reality is not science's problem.
Thorton claims;
Delete'cases of antibiotic resistance arising in a cell culture that previously had none have been empirically observed to arise through evolutionary mechanisms'
Yet Ian cites:
'Antibiotic resistance is manifested through a number of different mechanisms including target alteration, control of drug influx and efflux, and through highly efficient enzyme-mediated inactivation. Resistance can emerge relatively quickly in the case of some mutations in target genes and there is evidence that antibiotics themselves can promote such mutations [43], [44], [45], [46]; however, resistance to most antibiotics occurs through the aegis of extremely efficient enzymes, efflux proteins and other transport systems that often are highly specialized towards specific antibiotic molecules.'
And Shapiro notes, contrary to Thorton's claim, that these types of mechanisms, such as noted for antibiotic resistance, are 'non-random' in nature i.e. non-Darwinian!
Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009
Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf
anyone notice that evolution never seems to happen?
ReplyDeleteUnknown
ReplyDeleteanyone notice that evolution never seems to happen?
Except empirically observed examples of it happening are being documented all the time.
E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution
Cichlid Evolution: Lessons in Diversification
Maybe if you tried searching the scientific literature before posting nonsense....
Wow Thorton perhaps you should take your own advice?
DeleteMichael Behe's Quarterly Review of Biology Paper Critiques Richard Lenski's E. Coli Evolution Experiments - December 2010
Excerpt: After reviewing the results of Lenski's research, Behe concludes that the observed adaptive mutations all entail either loss or modification--but not gain--of Functional Coding ElemenTs (FCTs)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/michael_behes_quarterly_review041221.html
Mutations : when benefits level off - June 2011 - (Lenski's e-coli after 50,000 generations)
Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Casey Luskin June 8, 2011
Excerpt: In essence, these studies found that there is a fitness cost to becoming more fit. As mutations increase, bacteria faced barriers to the amount they could continue to evolve. If this kind of evidence doesn't run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/new_research_on_epistatic_inte047151.html
These following studies and video, on Cichlid fishes, are evidence of the 'limited and rapid variation from a parent kind' predicted by the Genetic Entropy model:
Cichlid Fish - Evolution or Variation Within Kind? - Dr. Arthur Jones - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036852
African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research:
"The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).----surprising implication of the study?---- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages"
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16846905
Multiple Genes Permit Closely Related Fish Species To Mix And Match Their Color Vision - Oct. 2005
Excerpt: In the new work, the researchers performed physiological and molecular genetic analyses of color vision in cichlid fish from Lake Malawi and demonstrated that differences in color vision between closely related species arise from individual species’ using different subsets of distinct visual pigments.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051011072648.htm
LOL! *Yawn* I go to bed a sad, frustrated anti-science creationist liar moron clown, crushed by the overwhelming evidence of cichlid fish evolving into cichlid fish.
DeleteThat's why I drop in once in a while. I love seeing you worked up into a frenzy of name calling while posting "evidence" of what was already obvious - such as of cichlid fishes begetting more cichlid fishes.
Unfortunately not everyone cares to discern the difference between science which incorporates new evidence and that which just tosses another epicycle on the heap like a kited check.
You'll never want for evidence as long as imaginations never fail, and I don't think they will. That's fine if it makes you happy, but it doesn't seem to be working. You seem a bit unhinged every time you begin a post with LOL! I can only stare into that pit for so long.
badlogic
DeleteI go to bed a sad, frustrated anti-science creationist liar moron clown
Sadly, you'll wake up one too. But the scientific world won't care about your willful ignorance one iota.
Thornton: what should we think about a 'Designer' who keeps creating ways to kill us?
ReplyDeleteSince when does someone "keep" doing this?
Actually, the thing is, ya know, something always kills you. Know what I'm sayin'?
That's the deal. Come to planet earth and you die. Materialists are driven to their mindset by their fearful minds. Which seem to be in crises mode over life: birth, procreation, death. All because of this deal. It all seems so pointless in a pointless universe doesn't it?.
MSEE
ReplyDeleteThornton: what should we think about a 'Designer' who keeps creating ways to kill us?
Since when does someone "keep" doing this?
According to Behe, the Designer is continually tinkering with the malaria parasite to give it resistance to our new anti-malaria drugs. And now you guys say bacteria were deliberately given anti-bacterial drug resistance by the Designer.
I'm just curious as to why you think we should worship this sadistic monster.
Actually, the thing is, ya know, something always kills you. Know what I'm sayin'?
Eventually, but there's no reason I see for a Designer to try and deliberately speed the process.
So we should worship the Thing that's trying to kill us? I think I'll pass.
@thornton ... you think we should worship this sadistic monster.
ReplyDeleteAn assertion based on what?
So we should worship the Thing that's trying to kill us? I think I'll pass.
Since I don't worship, I am constantly in amazement regarding the worship of the wealthy naturalist from the 19th century as belied in the media. I can amuse myself thinking of extraterrestrials coming here (not that I believe in them, many leftists do) and being subjected to conversion by academics to the cult of Darwin.
According to Behe, the Designer is continually tinkering with the malaria parasite to give it resistance to our new anti-malaria drugs. And now you guys say bacteria were deliberately given anti-bacterial drug resistance by the Designer.
As far as I can tell this is a false assertion. As far as I can tell, Behe has not refuted or tried to refute micro-evolution. Would you mind posting a quote from him supporting your assertion? I would be open to learning differently.
MSEE
ReplyDeleteT: So we should worship the Thing that's trying to kill us? I think I'll pass.
Since I don't worship,
Careful! Louis the fruit loop will now put you on his evil-heathen-deserve-to-die hit list.
T: "According to Behe, the Designer is continually tinkering with the malaria parasite to give it resistance to our new anti-malaria drugs. And now you guys say bacteria were deliberately given anti-bacterial drug resistance by the Designer."
As far as I can tell this is a false assertion. As far as I can tell, Behe has not refuted or tried to refute micro-evolution. Would you mind posting a quote from him supporting your assertion? I would be open to learning differently.
From Behe's Edge Of Evolution, p/237
Behe: "Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve’s children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it."
Behe seems to be the only IDist honest enough to face up to the ramification of his claims. None of the other ID leaders or any of the ID proponents here will touch the problem.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBonobo face:
DeleteFrom Behe's Edge Of Evolution, p/237
Behe: "Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve’s children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it."
Behe seems to be the only IDist honest enough to face up to the ramification of his claims. None of the other ID leaders or any of the ID proponents here will touch the problem.
What a willing idiot you are, bonobo face. Even though the book of Genesis makes this clear, many Christians are not aware that there were many designers (the Elohim or masters). And nowhere does it say in the scriptures which one of them created germs and viruses. The Yahweh of the old Testament was one of many gods that visited and adopted the nations of this world as their subjects. The scriptures say that Yahweh picked the Hebrews as his portion. The Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Aztecs and the Mayans all had their own gods and these were not all friendly toward one another. Some of those other gods were total asteroid orifices. Some were extremely sadistic. Seen Apocalypto?
Besides, it was not only bad things that were created. For example, natural immunity against germs and viruses was also designed. When the Hebrews got sick, they could go to the temple and get healed. How's that for a health care system?
So, bonobo face, you should shut your primate yap when it comes to the Christian religion because you know diddly squat about it. You are angry against a caricature of Christianity that you learned from the people who brought you up. The most ardent atheists are those who had a strict religious upbringing. That jackass Dawkins comes to mind. LOL. If you would only research the Judaeo-Christian heritage as much as you do your own chicken feather voodoo science, you would have a right to judge Christianity. Until then, you should shut your primate yap, you dirt worshiper.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow. Christianity as explained by Louis the fruit loop:
ReplyDelete"Even though the book of Genesis makes this clear, many Christians are not aware that there were many designers (the Elohim or masters). And nowhere does it say in the scriptures which one of them created germs and viruses. The Yahweh of the old Testament was one of many gods that visited and adopted the nations of this world as their subjects. The scriptures say that Yahweh picked the Hebrews as his portion. The Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Aztecs and the Mayans all had their own gods and these were not all friendly toward one another. Some of those other gods were total asteroid orifices. Some were extremely sadistic. Seen Apocalypto?"
Let's see a show of hands. How many of you Christians out there think Louis has accurately described True Christianity. How many think there were multiple gods, and multiple creators, and that the Christian god was just one more stumblebum in the pack?
Don't be afraid to vote.
"you should shut your primate yap when it comes to the Christian religion because you know diddly squat about it."
Yeah, all this time I thought Christianity was about the Golden Rule and love for your fellow man and the Trinity and Jesus coming to offer humans salvation. But you tell me it's about a sadistic, petty, second rate god who likes to kill those who don't believe as you do. Thanks for setting me straight.
Not at all, banana brain.
Delete1. I don't give a rat's behind if you and other Christians don't believe as I do. I know who my savior is.
2. If you had watched Cecil B. DeMille's Ten Commandments, you would have known that the Egyptians had powerful gods that could turn water into blood and sticks into snakes. If you had any knowledge of what you were attacking, you would know that one of the ten commandments is "thou shall no other gods before me". But you are an ignoramus and you are stupid as donkey dung on top of it. LOL. So I am not surprised.
3. You die because of karma. Not even God can go against karma. It's a spiritual conservation principle: an eye for an eye and all that. We humans are evil and there is no place in the universe for our kind unless someone pays the price for us and the price is death. Karma is a bitch.
4. The above is true whether or not you think you're righteous. And we all know you're an asteroid orifice and a jackass. There is no need for you to deny it. You prove it here everyday. LOL.
5. If you don't believe in God's sacrifice, you don't get eternal life. As simple as that. You will die just like the cockroaches, the fleas, the worms and the bonobos with no possibility of redemption.
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
@thornton Behe seems to be the only IDist honest enough to face up to the ramification of his claims. None of the other ID leaders or any of the ID proponents here will touch the problem.
ReplyDeleteI bought the book when it came out and read it in a couple of days, so my recall may be a little shaky here. It seems that Behe, like I said, does not believe the "Designer is continually tinkering with the malaria parasite" nor do I. Behe (from my memory) discusses micro- or "sideways" evolution, such as drug resistance, and finches beaks changing. This is observed and mistaken for macro-evolution (humans love to categorize) which is that which generates novel complexity, which I don't believe can be observed.
And besides, a single malaria cell only kills a single red blood cell. A single drunk illegal alien behind the wheel can kill several complete human beings. Your blessed "natural selection" selected for drunk drivers then. Why? Blessed "natural selection" selected this creature: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalpost.com%2F2012%2F04%2F17%2Fnorway-gunman-anders-behring-breivik-brags-of-most-sophisticated-spectacular-attack-on-europe-since-wwii%2F&ei=9WiNT_TRA6jo2QWxgrXsCw&usg=AFQjCNHTgVsfl7IcOPA8rJxEPrl5a0lZag
WHY and how?
MSEE:
DeleteA single drunk illegal alien behind the wheel can kill several complete human beings.
Wow. You are a holier-than-thou self-righteous jackass, just as I thought.
MSEE
DeleteI bought the book when it came out and read it in a couple of days, so my recall may be a little shaky here.
I just gave you an exact quote from Behe in his book:
Behe: "Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. "
If you think Behe is wrong and malaria wasn't intentionally designed, please provide your arguments.
Your blessed "natural selection" selected for drunk drivers then. Why? Blessed "natural selection" selected this creature:
Ignoring for a moment your totally disgusting misuse of a tragedy to try and make a point; natural selection in a population is statistical in its effects. Casinos in Las Vegas don't win every blackjack hand or every roulette spin, but because they have a small statistical advantage they are virtually certain come out ahead in the long run.
For a guy who continually brags about his mathematical prowess you sure seem clueless on the basics.
MSEE:
ReplyDeleteThis is stupid offensive language dude. It is offensive to me, and probably is not to thornton. Your ego is out of control.
LOL. My ego? You're the one getting offended, dude. But if you don't like what I write, don't read it. I don't see you get all bent out of shape when Bonobo face insults people on this forum. Why do you kiss bonobo face's posterior? You enjoy it?
One more thing. Do you put food on my table? I don't think so. But even if you did, I would still tell you to kiss my you know what.
ahahaha...
Re: ...disgusting misuse of a tragedy to try and make a point...
ReplyDelete"Thorton Jan 31, 2012 05:22 PM
Eugen
Oh yeah? My Engineer is better than yours!
Yeah, he's sure done some wonderful
work. http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/8LimbGirlBARC_468x319.jpg
That God of yours, what a kidder!
http://dunyanews.tv/news/2011/December/12-23-11/news_big_images/56421_53314754.jpg"
Pots and kettles.
The internet is your God now. Worship your idol daily. See you in hell!
ReplyDeleteHere is more!
ReplyDeleteCenturies before antibiotics were put into use for human health, genes for antibiotic resistance already existed in viruses found in human coprolites, new research shows. -
See more at: http://crev.info/2014/02/antibiotic-resistance-genes-found-in-medieval/#sthash.QA0eWUfY.dpuf
Intresting .. I found a summit which going to be held on Antibiotics Check out this.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Hunter,
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the antibiotic-resistent gene existed in the bacteria population for thousands of years before the invention of antibiotics in no way invalidates evolution. In fact, genetic diversity is necessary for evolution. Natural Selection does not state that an environmental stress, such as an antibiotic, causes the gene to be created. The gene could have been there since the beginning of time. Natural Selection states that the trait gets expressed. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are a perfect example of this. We have a large population of bacteria. Among that population, a very tiny number, let's say for our example, 0.01%, happen to contain a random mutation that conveys resistance to an antibiotic. A stressor is introduced into the environment, a drought, temperature change, a predator, or in our example, an antibiotic. The stressor wipes out 99.99% of the population of the bacteria, but, because of the random mutation, which may have been lying dormant for thousands of years, 0.01% of the bacteria survive. These bacteria reproduce, and now we have our new population of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. That is a perfect example of natural selection. Nowhere in the theory of natural selection is the idea that the genetic diversity that allows it to happen was recently created.