Jump to content


Photo

Evolution-tested And Falsified


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
118 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 April 2010 - 12:43 PM

Careful with that.  I have a friend that can "speciate" dogs.  Species is a definition  that associates phenotypical features. 

I have no problem with the principles of speciation.  Speciation does not prove macroevolution.


Macroevolution is defined as evolution "at" or "above" the species level.

Speciation, and macroevolution, have been observed numerously.

Please cite this--and how are you defining macroevolution, along with the particular mechanism of that macroevolution?


As above, and the mechanism varies considerably. Have we seen the evolution of a new genera (or higher) between generations? No; this would, in fact, go against the evidence for evolution - the slow accumulation of variation over time. Genera and above require hundreds of thousands of years - millions of years - to evolve. Our longest term experiments are, what, a few decades old? The generation time and mutation rate of an organism is the same in a lab as in the wild.

Nevertheless:
Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15

Macnair, M. R., 1989. A new species of Mimulus endemic to copper mines in California. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 100: 1-14.

Wake, David B., 1997. Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 7761-7767.

Van Valen, Leigh M. and Virginia C. Maiorana, 1991. HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74.

Filchak, Kenneth E., Joseph B. Roethele and Jeffrey L. Feder, 2000. Natural selection and sympatric divergence in the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature 407: 739-742.

there are plenty more.

I am taking for granted you are not defining 'random' as "without definite aim, purpose, method, or adherence to a prior arrangement; in a haphazard way." Because if is the definition you are using for 'random,' then I don't know what to say. I don't see much 'random' in the genetic or cellular machinery.

Are you looking at results of 'random' mutation as they sit and assuming the cause, or did you see a cause in process. And was that cause random?


No genetic and cellular machinary do not have much "randomness" about them. Thats because natural selection - the thing that creates meaningful structure - is not random. It directs random mutation to a purpose.

If you don't like YEC, there is OEC--old earth creationism. Which is old universe, young creation. I used to adhere to the gap theory, which believes there was an undetermined gap of time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.

However, I have read enough rebuttal material on carbon and radiometric dating, and especially after seeing the blind adherence to the evolutionary cause when heme was found in dinosaur bones. I have alot of reason to not trust the judgment of well educated, but obviously biased people.


But by this definition, you shouldnt like YEC either. Im guessing this "rebuttal" concerns polonium halos or something similar?That too, has been thoroughly descredited. Radioactive decay really doesnt vary enough to give such opposing dates of the universe: 14 billion years vs 10,000-6000 years. But then again, thats not how YEC has worked out the age of the universe anyway, is it?

Who was it again, Bishop Ussher?

I'm glad you're open to it then. But I'm not talking about 'spirituality.' The modern definition of 'spirituality' has no authority, because it accepts whatever, whatever.

I mean one of the points of agnostics is that there are so many 'beliefs.' According to the Bible, there are many spirits. We are told by the apostle John to test the spirits, whether they be from God.

YEC is not Christianity. YEC removes the heart from the gospel, not intentionally, but because of science's naturalistic ground rules. It is an attempt to answer the modern challenges of post-enlightenment science. You can't say it is Christianity, but it is science using a Biblically based model--as opposed to science using an evolutionary old earth model.


lol, do you not see any irony in your words????

"naturalistic ground rules".

Okay, the naturalistic ground rules stipulate, not only that the global flood didnt happen, but that, for thousands of others reasons, actually could not ever happen.

If YEC is a naturalistic science, how do you know the global flood is the same one as that in the bible?

At least be honest AFJ, the rules of naturalism have no relevance for YEC or "creation science". The natural world doesnt even have relavance for YEC or "creation science". If it did, why do you feel compelled, amongst other things, to explain genetic homologies as "common design", relying precisely on a deity beyond the limits of "naturalistic ground rules"???? Hmmmmm?

YEC is perfectly suited to answer naturalistic questions, but only when god is there.

Whether we evolved from primates is not "every single scientific development" as you stated. You are equating phylogenetics with all of science. You are speaking very idealistically, not real world. I have a friend who worked in oil exploration as a geologist for years. His emphasis was not evolution, but on how to find oil. The so-called uniformity of forminefera in exploration is instead very complex. In the form of complex and bent lenses. That's why you have to be able to read the equipment. Which he did, yet he is a man of faith--a creationist. This did not hinder his ability to perform as a geologist.

Yet the text books would paint a picture of uniformity which is not at all the case in all strata.


No, AFJ, YEC is against anything that goes, by some bizzare coincidence, against a literal reading of the bible. Cant think why.

People involved in the natural world - even its exploitation - can be creationists, it doesnt mean they are right. If your friend is a young earth creationist, geologist or no, he is very much wrong.

#62 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 04 April 2010 - 02:41 PM

Macroevolution is defined as evolution "at" or "above" the species level.

Speciation, and macroevolution, have been observed numerously.
As above, and the mechanism varies considerably. Have we seen the evolution of a new genera (or higher) between generations? No; this would, in fact, go against the evidence for evolution - the slow accumulation of variation over time. Genera and above require hundreds of thousands of years - millions of years - to evolve. Our longest term experiments are, what, a few decades old? The generation time and mutation rate of an organism is the same in a lab as in the wild.     

Nevertheless:
Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15

Macnair, M. R., 1989. A new species of Mimulus endemic to copper mines in California. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 100: 1-14.

Wake, David B., 1997. Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 7761-7767.

Van Valen, Leigh M. and Virginia C. Maiorana, 1991. HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74.

Filchak, Kenneth E., Joseph B. Roethele and Jeffrey L. Feder, 2000. Natural selection and sympatric divergence in the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature 407: 739-742.

there are plenty more.
No genetic and cellular machinary do not have much "randomness" about them. Thats because natural selection - the thing that creates meaningful structure - is not random. It directs random mutation to a purpose.
But by this definition, you shouldnt like YEC either. Im guessing this "rebuttal" concerns polonium halos or something similar?That too, has been thoroughly descredited. Radioactive decay really doesnt vary enough to give such opposing dates of the universe: 14 billion years vs 10,000-6000 years. But then again, thats not how YEC has worked out the age of the universe anyway, is it?

Who was it again, Bishop Ussher?
lol, do you not see any irony in your words????

"naturalistic ground rules".

Okay, the naturalistic ground rules stipulate, not only that the global flood didnt happen, but that, for thousands of others reasons, actually could not ever happen.

If YEC is a naturalistic science, how do you know the global flood is the same one as that in the bible?

At least be honest AFJ, the rules of naturalism have no relevance for YEC or "creation science". The natural world doesnt even have relavance for YEC or "creation science". If it did, why do you feel compelled, amongst other things, to explain genetic homologies as "common design", relying precisely on a deity beyond the limits of "naturalistic ground rules"???? Hmmmmm?

YEC is perfectly suited to answer naturalistic questions, but only when god is there.
No, AFJ, YEC is against anything that goes, by some bizzare coincidence, against a literal reading of the bible. Cant think why.

People involved in the natural world - even its exploitation - can be creationists, it doesnt mean they are right. If your friend is a young earth creationist, geologist or no, he is very much wrong.

View Post

I'm sorry McStone, I dont mean to avoid the questions, but my schedule is limited today. The main thing is that you say macroevolution has been done en vitro. Then when I ask for citation, you give me the usual spill about millions of years, and a list of books, who all will spout the same supposed jargon you gave me. It is repititious indoctrination.

You mock at the idea of Adam and Eve, but expect me to give you present day data to compare with an age where things were obviously biologically different. The biblical record stands with the"fall of man." The pseudogenes, and many other non-coding genetic material may have once encoded things of which we now have no understanding. But of course this is speculation--I am saying this would not be inconsistent with loss of original genetic material. Of course you interpret this as accumulation of mutation.

We can argue science all day, but I have to ask you if you saw a real miracle in the name of Jesus, would it not make you pause and rethink about the supernatural, or life after life?

Most creation scientists that I have read about were at one time staunch evolutionists. Many of them did not change because of the evidence for YEC, but because they met Christ. They had an encounter with God--that means supernatural--which means something that is outside the bounds of science. After the encounter their worldview had changed, and they explored the YEC position after. Without that encounter, no one will ever see a YEC point of view.

I ask you to consider this Utube link I found from the Discovery Channel. It is about a scientist that returned from the dead. Please try to put your biases aside for at least 10 minutes. The comp I'm on is not allowing the http:// to work, so I will give you two links you can copy and paste. Sorry.

http://www.youtube.c...next=1&index=44




#63 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 04 April 2010 - 02:59 PM

I'm sorry McStone, I dont mean to avoid the questions, but my schedule is limited today.  The main thing is that you say macroevolution has been done en vitro.  Then when I ask for citation, you give me the usual spill about millions of years, and a list of books, who all will spout the same supposed jargon you gave me.  It is repititious indoctrination. 

As far as the flood, there are many things science predicts that are wrong.  There is no way a man can predict what trillions of gallons of water would do, or how much sediment would have been thrown up with it. You see an entire underwater volcanic ridge banding the world, and the scriputre just happens to say the fountains of the deep were opened.  You see millions of marine fossils buried.  Broken fossils everywhere and the ones that aren't show signs of rapid burial.  You see the GC on the sothwest of the Colorado Plateau which shows massive drainage channels, hematite coated sand all over the place, huge shale deposits in the form of dunes and hills--how did that happen?  Obviously the uniformintarian model is inadequate in it's explanations here, if you know what they are--no offense.

You mock at the idea of Adam and Eve, but expect me to give you present day data to compare with an age where things were obviously biologically different.  The biblical record stands with the"fall of man."  The pseudogenes, and many other non-coding genetic material may have once encoded things of which we now have no understanding. But of course this is speculation--I am saying this would not be inconsistent with loss of original genetic material.  Of course you interpret this as accumulation of mutation. 

We can argue science all day, but I have to ask you if you saw a real miracle in the name of Jesus, would it not make you pause and rethink about the supernatural, or life after life? 

Most creation scientists that I have read about were at one time staunch evolutionists.  Many of them did not change because of the evidence for YEC, but because they met Christ.  They had an encounter with God--that means supernatural--which means something that is outside the bounds of science.  After the encounter their worldview had changed, and they explored the YEC position after.  Without that encounter, no one will ever see a YEC point of view.

I ask you to consider this Utube link I found from the Discovery Channel. It is about a scientist that returned from the dead.  Please try to put your biases aside for at least 10 minutes.  The comp I'm on  is not allowing the http:// to work, so I will give you two links you can copy and paste.  Sorry.

http://www.youtube.c...next=1&index=44


#64 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 04 April 2010 - 04:36 PM

Scott, i understand you dont want to lose face - even on an internet forum. Buts its too late, you already have, and your about to lose some more.

I believe firmly in constructive criticism. However, the person it concerns should at least want to learn. You dont want to learn Scott. As far as your concerned, the knowledge of some desert nomad from 2000 years ago is as a reasonable explanation as any other. In fact, its the superlative explanation. Despite the whole history of academic thought - the reformation, the enlightenment, the romantic era, the industrial and scientific revolution - the bible - despite not telling us that much about biology - is the answer to biology. Everything in biology is in perfect harmony with god.

Except Biology doesnt conform to a scrap of paper. It is full of parasites, parasitoids, carnivores and disease, and always has been. As i have said countless times before, what does it tell you that to believe what you do, we have to take it on the chin - blind faith - that things in biology were "different" back then?

That men could come from soil
That women could come from a mans rib
That snakes could talk
That people could live for hundreds of years
That a man could travel the world and capture two of every terrestrial organism
That carnivores - from fish to mammals - were all vegan

What did tigers have for teeth Scott? Corks?

So your wrong on the immune system just as you are wrong on these things. And your wrong, about all of these things, because you dont know any better. To date, you show no signs of wanting to learn anything.

Noah canoing down the amazon is perfectly reasonable - perfectly accurate - of what really happened.
Well gee golly bum Scott (what a curious, American phrase), chemical memory is in fact totally different to "DNA". "Chemical memory" is exactly that, memory mediated by chemicals; or rather chemical compounds called antigens. Antigens are mostly proteins, contained on the surface coats (or membranes) of bacteria and viruses and other pathogens. Your immune system - the cell-mediated immune system - works through the recognition of these antigens. Upon infection, the antigens of a given pathogen are presented to a T helper cell which directs the production of other kinds of cells; T killer cells and macrophages (which basically go around killing pathogens) and the B cell, which creates an antibody specific to the antigen. Long lived memory cells are also produced, allowing long-term immunity. Nowhere is DNA involved (other than normal protein synthesis); the antigen does not instigate the installation of a relevent new coding. Memory cells are devoted to produce proteins specific to the relevant antigen - relevant proteins are transcribed and modified - and, in doing so, a side-effect is that they actually invite a higher deleterious mutation rate; the cells lose other functions as a consequence.

  Consequently, immunity is not inherited. This is why women are advised to breast feed their children - to provide a short-lived immunity to disease until the child grows stronger and is able to acquire their own. Scott, why do you think it might be a bad move to genetically decree ("memorize") immunity?

It is totally different to antibiotic resistance, caused by a selectable and permenant mutation.

Again:

http://nar.oxfordjou...ract/12/11/4653

"Antibiotic resistance mutations in 16S and 23S ribosomal RNA genes of Escherichia coli"         
Yes. Presumably though, my points about noah must have occurred to you too, right?

Noah taking corals from the great barrier reef (corals would not have survived a flood).
No Scott, its not demonstrable, at all, because organisms cannot direct their own genes and consequently, their eventual adaptation. As shown in the above article (and many others), antibiotic resistance is caused by random mutation, and this even comes around as an evolutionary trade-off:

http://www.sciencedi...3bcfff6015b8146

"The biological cost of antibiotic resistance"
see above, Scott. Once again, antibiotic resistance is determined by random mutation. Call me Mr Picky, but its probably not the best self-defense technique.
Yes, well thanks for that "titbit" Scott. For your information (and as i have written, but that doesnt seem to matter), i dont doubt that DNA "codes" for something, or that this something could be said to be "information". What i doubt is that the "information" in question is a strong enough argument to support your position:

"Information must increase through evolution"

which totally ignores the truth that proteins come in all shapes and sizes and can do the same thing, and indeed that genomes (raw information), too, can be huge, or tiny, without any difference in an organism's apparent complexity. "Information" is not a valid biological measurement, because it depends on context. A non-coding sequence might become a coding sequence (or dragged into a coding sequence) with a single mutation. If anything, there is a slight inverse relationship between genome size and organismal complexity.
Scott, its like your just ignoring what im saying. I said:
Maybe its the word "shag". In britain "shag" "shagging" is roughly equivalent to s@x, in america in means "kissing", doesnt it?

Scott, your still not getting this. Mutations become fixed because they become more and more prevalent. If individuals with a given mutation are able to produce - more, and more often - it will eventually be that other variants are out numbered. This takes time - time for populations to grow and migrate - but eventually it will happen.

Look Scott, imagine a jar. Every minute, your going to put in this jar one red ball and three blue balls. If you do this for a whole hour, the jar will be full and if you randomly choose, say, 10 balls, the odds are that you have many more blue balls to red balls in your sample.

So, taking it back to ecology, "red" individuals will find it harder and harder to encounter other "reds". The "gene landscape" (the variation in a population)  will become more and more homogenously "blue", and the spatial (perhaps temporal e.g. seasonality) difference between "reds" will increase. So, ultimately, the "blue" variant becomes fixed; "reds" are only able to breed with "blues".

Of course its not "one" allele thats proliferating at any time. Its variation on every single gene. Its a little harder to quantify larger changes into this mendelian model such as whole genome duplication; they are less predictable changes. However, this can happen between two generations (and macroevolution has been observed in a lab - particularly in plants and bacteria).

Scott, please debate with me. Dont just disregard this stuff as "evo-babble" tell me how im wrong. How anything ive said is somehow illogical.   
Scott, as has been patiently demonstrated, on consecutive occasions:

1)there is no such thing as genetic memory (unless this is a permenant modification in germ-lines cells)

2)mutations become fixed in a population through inqualities in good, old-fashioned bonking

3)antibiotics are naturally occurring compounds used by organisms to kill other organisms (humans exploit this relationship)

4)antibiotic resistance is caused by random mutation (even single point mutations)

5)organisms have no ability to direct their own genetics, merely the ability to use whats available
Please present a valid counter-argument, and please read up on biology.
http://www.nature.co...sb0396-275.html

You can piece it together from there, check the references out.

View Post


Ah yes McStone, your entire argument is quite invalid, yet again. I'm not wrong on the immune system, I'm quite correct, and you are quite obviously wrong.

Why are you wrong? Simple, Antigens are proteins. DNA is built of proteins. DNA contains memory from the Parents, and it is thus passed on to the offspring. Even though you are right about children having to build their immune systems. Some of the immunity is passed on from the Mother, but not all immunity... Which you do mention, and brings into nicely what I want to talk about. The immune system.

You do realize that the human immune system reacts completely on the DNA of it's white blood cells. These reactions towards opposing proteins allows the DNA to react to the opposing Bacteria... it truly is battle of the DNA's.

The White Blood cells have to react with the Chemical compounds that make up the Bacteria... Which actually do make up the Bacteria's DNA composition.

Proteins reacting with Proteins... McStone, your mistake here is quite obvious. Our immune system, has to react to chemical ( Protein Composition) of the Bacteria.

B cells, which create the Antibody, have to figure out the Chemical ( Protein DNA compostition ( amino acids) of the Bacteria.) You actually refuted yourself in this post, because you forgot completely what has to happen for an Antibody to even be produced. Protein recognition... it's all in the game, and without DNA, all of it would be impossible. The B cells, would not be able to translate the Bacteria's Chemical Composition, therefore rendering them useless.

McStone, DNA is a very integral part of the immune system, and stating that DNA is nowhere in use in the immune system is so incorrect, that it will ultimately rip your argument apart. Yes McStone, you have been exposed on this issue as well.

1. There is such thing as Genetic Memory, LOL you forget that you have your mother and father's genes. Sorry McStone, but you are incorrect again. If it wasn't information, you would not share traits with your ancestors... your Mother, Father, Grandmother, and Grandfather... the list goes on... Transferable Information. You say organisms cannot direct their own genes... Hold on a minute McStone, you are incorrect on this. Your mother and father selected each other, and thusly selected a way to direct their own genes. Same goes for animals, The stronger more capable Males are selected by the Females, over the less competitive... most of the time.

2. Mutations are passed through the breeding process...sometimes, but I did not disagree with you on this. Mutations are actually completely different than Antibiotics... Radiation causes Mutations, Chemicals that destroy DNA composition Amino Acids will cause Mutation, because the some of the Amount of DNA ( Polypeptide chain is broken) is lost when it is shot through cells in the body. When the cells loose this information, they begin to multipy incorrectly because they cannot transfer their information correctly... resulting in tumors/Mutations. Mutations are caused by a disturbance.

Transfer information DNA, RNA. Nucleotide bases are disturbed.

Now, you may ask why are Antibiotics different then, because they are reacting to a disturbance... yes they are acting to a disturbance, because they used their Protein Synthesis to find a way to match chemical (Protein Composition/ you already know the composition amino acids which have to contain nucleotide bases from the DNA to even be contructed) of the enemy, so that it can help stop the production of certain functions of the Bacteria. When the AntiBody has done this, the Bacteria try to find a way to Synthesis With proteins in the Immune system, so that they too can fight against the immune system. DNA... it's all in the game.

3. Antibiotics are naturally occuring compounds ( molecules) a.k.a proteins ( amino acids), which are creating by using DNA. If DNA wasn't a part of the equation, it would not work... recogintion of the foreign substances protein make-up is absolutely necessary.

4. Antibiotic resistance is obviously NOT caused by mutation, because as can clearly be seen the selection of proteins ( amino acids Which have to contain nucleotide bases to even be constructed ) is used. A switch. No mutation has occured, it is simply natural. When you take Protein Synthesis out of the equation, then you will not get Antibiotic resistance. It's all in the Protein ( amino acid which have to contain nucleotide bases to even be constructed) Selection, A switch in the code... ( which as been demonstrated over and over, yet you still don't get it, even though it has been explained + demonstrated by the Bacteria and Immune Systems themselves). Therefore, you are incorrect again. Random Mutation doesn't have a thing to do with the Protein ( amino acid which contain Nucleotide bases to even be constructed) Selection, it is quite none-random, and it is quite actually not a mutation.


You ask me that I should actually try to debate you McStone... Really McStone? You have got realize when you are being debated... such as now, and every single time you've been called out in your posts. You say I don't want to learn anything? Well maybe you need get back to books yourself, because as I have shown, your a little short in your own understanding.

This post has been edited to satisfy McStone's nit picky ness.

I'm sorry that the statement DNA is Protein caused so much confusion. DNA helps build proteins, it isn't THE Protein, even though the Protein contains molecules from the DNA... then again that's not the point of my argument, but needs to be pointed out anyways. Thanks McStone for pointing this out, now you may actually address the points.

#65 Rhan_Tegoth

Rhan_Tegoth

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Planet Earth

Posted 04 April 2010 - 04:45 PM

Ah yes McStone, your entire argument is quite invalid, yet again.  I'm not wrong on the immune system, I'm quite correct, and you are quite obviously wrong.

Why are you wrong?  Simple, Antigens are proteins.  DNA is built of proteins.  DNA contains memory from the Parents, and it is thus passed on to the offspring.  Even though you are right about children having to build their immune systems.  Some of the immunity is passed on from the Mother, but not all immunity... Which you do mention, and brings into nicely what I want to talk about.  The immune system.

You do realize that the human immune system reacts completely on the DNA of it's white blood cells.  These reactions towards opposing proteins allows the DNA to react to the opposing Bacteria... it truly is battle of the DNA's.

The White Blood cells have to react with the Chemical compounds that make up the Bacteria... Which actually do make up the Bacteria's DNA composition.

Proteins reacting with Proteins... McStone, your mistake here is quite obvious.  Our immune system, has to react to chemical ( Protein Composition) of the Bacteria.

B cells, which create the Antibody, have to figure out the Chemical ( Protein DNA compostition of the Bacteria.)  You actually refuted yourself in this post, because you forgot completely what has to happen for an Antibody to even be produced.  Protein recognition... it's all in the game, and without DNA, all of it would be impossible.  The B cells, would not be able to translate the Bacteria's Chemical Composition, therefore rendering them useless.

McStone, DNA is a very integral part of the immune system, and stating that DNA is nowhere in use in the immune system is so incorrect, that it will ultimately rip your argument apart.  Yes McStone, you have been exposed on this issue as well.

1. There is such thing as Genetic Memory, LOL you forget that you have your mother and father's genes.  Sorry McStone, but you are incorrect again.  If it wasn't information, you would not share traits with your ancestors... your Mother, Father, Grandmother, and Grandfather... the list goes on...  Transferable Information.  You say organisms cannot direct their own genes... Hold on a minute McStone, you are incorrect on this.  Your mother and father selected each other, and thusly selected a way to direct their own genes.  Same goes for animals,  The stronger more capable Males are selected by the Females, over the less competitive... most of the time.

2. Mutations are passed through the breeding process...sometimes, but I did not disagree with you on this.  Mutations are actually completely different than Antibiotics... Radiation causes Mutations, Chemicals that destroy DNA composition will cause Mutation, because the some of the Amount of DNA is lost when it is shot through cells in the body.  When the cells loose this information, they begin to multipy incorrectly because they cannot transfer their information correctly... resulting in tumors/Mutations.  Mutations are caused by a disturbance. 

Now, you may ask why are Antibiotics different then, because they are reacting to a disturbance... yes they are acting to a disturbance, because they used their Protein Synthesis to find a way to match chemical (Protein Composition) of the enemy, so that it can help stop the production of certain functions of the Bacteria.  When the AntiBody has done this, the Bacteria try to find a way to Synthesis With proteins in the Immune system, so that they too can fight against the immune system.  DNA... it's all in the game. 

3. Antibiotics are naturally occuring compounds a.k.a proteins, which are creating by using DNA.  If DNA wasn't a part of the equation, it would not work... recogintion of the foreign substances protein make-up is absolutely necessary.

4. Antibiotic resistance is obviously NOT caused by mutation, because as can clearly be seen the selection of proteins is used.  A switch.  No mutation has occured, it is simply natural.  When you take Protein Synthesis out of the equation, then you will not get Antibiotic resistance.  It's all in the Protein Selection, A switch in the code... ( which as been demonstrated over and over, yet you still don't get it, even though it has been explained + demonstrated by the Bacteria and Immune Systems themselves).  Therefore, you are incorrect again.  Random Mutation doesn't have a thing to do with the Protein Selection, it is quite none-random, and it is quite actually not a mutation.
You ask me that I should actually try to debate you McStone... Really McStone?  You have got realize when you are being debated... such as now, and every single time you've been called out in your posts.  You say I don't want to learn anything?  Well maybe you need get back to books yourself, because as I have shown, your a little short in your own understanding.

View Post



Actually Scott, there are Synthetic antibiotics to which resistance can develop. But if antibiotic resistance isn't caused by mutation and has a supernatural origin, Why don't you explain EXACTLY how God does it......And why.

#66 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 04 April 2010 - 05:14 PM

Okay, for my own interest I will address your points about YEC.

Could men come from soil? Interesting, soild contains some of the exact same ingredients that is takes to make a human being, and most compost/soil is actually made up of dead matter, which was once living organisms, or humans... yes they actually have turned to soil.

Which brings up another interesting conclusion:

Plants get their nutrients from soil.

Herbivores get their nutrients from the plants, which recieved that nutrients from the soil.

Carnivores get their nutrients from the Herbivores, which recieved that nutrients from the plants, whom recieved that nutrients from the soil.

Now, when the Animals breed, and produce offspring... they created their offspring from the nutrients they ate, that helped build their cells, and actually kept them alive.

Where did this nutrients come from? It ultimately came from soil... So in all actuality we really did come from soil.

Soil, it's what helped bring you into this world, and it's what your going to be after your dead so the cycle of life can continue.

Could Eve have come from a rib? Well, if God was doing it... Yes! It took a miracle, and that rib contained genetic material that God could use. I'm basing all of this on faith though... but another fact I'm going to bring up isn't faith.

The human rib is actually one of the only bones that will actually grow back when it's removed. Interesting, so God knew Adams rib would grow back... if you follow the Biblical story that is.

I also want to point out my American term Gee Golly Bum, because I was going to use the word Gee Wiz... but I knew that was a U.K. term, seeing as how one of your Imported electric cars are called that. Is Gee Wiz an Indian term from India? Well it definately sounds English so I'll leave it at that.

Now back to Snakes talking, I do believe that the Bible was actually refering to Satan, instead, even though unfortunately for snakes they were cursed to the ground for the rest of their lives. I have absolutely no idea what snakes may have been like before the fall of Adam and Eve. Assuming and having faith that the story is real. So I don't believe that the Bible is actually stating that animals could talk before the fall, but that was Satan's business... even though there are other instances in the Bible that animals talk... but I believe it was mostly Divine Intervention from God in those other cases to prove a point.

Could people have lived for hundreds of years? Maybe they could if their genetic compostistion completely perfect, or near perfect. Maybe they could if they were really close to being perfect. Of-course, if you believe in the Bible, then you'd have to believe this by default since Adam, and Eve were the first human beings.

Plus, that would mean Adam and Eve's genes were perfect, meaning that inbreeding would probably not be a problem until later on down the fall of man. When people reproduced further and further away from the original perfection point. But alas, I take this as an assumption, and I take the Biblical Creation story by Faith.

Could all animals have been vegan? I don't believe so. I only believe that Adam and Eve were protected in the Garden of Eden, because that Garden was a place of protection, and that God Himself protected them from the outside world.

Why?

1. Sin had already entered the World, because Satan was already in it at the time.
2. The Fall of Man, was just that... the starting point for specifically man's sin.

Of course Animals killing animals may not be sinful, because they don't have souls, and they won't be judged for their actions. That doesn't mean that animals can't do what we as humans percieve as wrong, because it us humans who apply our God given morals to our lives. Even though you may believe secularly that you somehow, or that the court systems somehow came up with the concept of morality all on their own.

Now on to Noah... The Story is simple, God provided Noah with the animals, food, and the Ark to survive. God didn't bring all the animals on the ark by 2's, but some by 7's. God didn't bring humans on the ark by 2's, he brought an entire family which wasn't exactly genetically the same equally throughout.

Of course, the simple explanation for this is that God did it. I know you don't like to hear " God did it." But alas, there are specific threads for these discussions, and they have been thoughrouly discussed there without having to resort soley to a God did it situation, even though according to the Bible God did do it. We are just merely trying to figure out "How" God did it.

#67 Rhan_Tegoth

Rhan_Tegoth

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Planet Earth

Posted 04 April 2010 - 05:26 PM

Okay, for my own interest I will address your points about YEC.

Could men come from soil?  Interesting, soild contains some of the exact same ingredients that is takes to make a human being, and most compost/soil is actually made up of dead matter, which was once living organisms, or humans... yes they actually have turned to soil.

Which brings up another interesting conclusion:

Plants get their nutrients from soil.

Herbivores get their nutrients from the plants, which recieved that nutrients from the soil.

Carnivores get their nutrients from the Herbivores, which recieved that nutrients from the plants, whom recieved that nutrients from the soil.

Now, when the Animals breed, and produce offspring... they created their offspring from the nutrients they ate, that helped build their cells, and actually kept them alive. 

Where did this nutrients come from?  It ultimately came from soil... So in all actuality we really did come from soil.

Soil, it's what helped bring you into this world, and it's what your going to be after your dead so the cycle of life can continue.

Could Eve have come from a rib?  Well, if God was doing it... Yes!  It took a miracle, and that rib contained genetic material that God could use.  I'm basing all of this on faith though... but another fact I'm going to bring up isn't faith.

The human rib is actually one of the only bones that will actually grow back when it's removed.  Interesting, so God knew Adams rib would grow back... if you follow the Biblical story that is.

I also want to point out my American term Gee Golly Bum, because I was going to use the word Gee Wiz... but I knew that was a U.K. term, seeing as how one of your Imported electric cars are called that.  Is Gee Wiz an Indian term from India?  Well it definately sounds English so I'll leave it at that.

Now back to Snakes talking, I do believe that the Bible was actually refering to Satan, instead, even though unfortunately for snakes they were cursed to the ground for the rest of their lives.  I have absolutely no idea what snakes may have been like before the fall of Adam and Eve.  Assuming and having faith that the story is real.  So I don't believe that the Bible is actually stating that animals could talk before the fall, but that was Satan's business... even though there are other instances in the Bible that animals talk... but I believe it was mostly Divine Intervention from God in those other cases to prove a point.

Could people have lived for hundreds of years?  Maybe they could if their genetic compostistion completely perfect, or near perfect.  Maybe they could if they were really close to being perfect.  Of-course, if you believe in the Bible, then you'd have to believe this by default since Adam, and Eve were the first human beings.

Plus, that would mean Adam and Eve's genes were perfect, meaning that inbreeding would probably not be a problem until later on down the fall of man.  When people reproduced further and further away from the original perfection point.  But alas, I take this as an assumption, and I take the Biblical Creation story by Faith.

Could all animals have been vegan? I don't believe so.  I only believe that Adam and Eve were protected in the Garden of Eden, because that Garden was a place of protection, and that God Himself protected them from the outside world.

Why? 

1.  Sin had already entered the World, because Satan was already in it at the time.
2.  The Fall of Man, was just that... the starting point for specifically man's sin.

Of course Animals killing animals may not be sinful, because they don't have souls, and they won't be judged for their actions.  That doesn't mean that animals can't do what we as humans percieve as wrong, because it us humans who apply our God given morals to our lives.  Even though you may believe secularly that you somehow, or that the court systems somehow came up with the concept of morality all on their own.

Now on to Noah...  The Story is simple, God provided Noah with the animals, food, and the Ark to survive.  God didn't bring all the animals on the ark by 2's, but some by 7's.  God didn't bring humans on the ark by 2's, he brought an entire family which wasn't exactly genetically the same equally throughout.

Of course, the simple explanation for this is that God did it.  I know you don't like to hear " God did it."  But alas, there are specific threads for these discussions, and they have been thoughrouly discussed there without having to resort soley to a God did it situation, even though according to the Bible God did do it.  We are just merely trying to figure out "How"  God did it.

View Post



The authors of the bible claimed that *God did it* because at the time of its writing they had no other explanations! And so they made up a story that appeals intuitively despite the fact that at the time people knew NOTHING about biology and very little about chemistry.

#68 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 04 April 2010 - 05:27 PM

Actually Scott, there are Synthetic antibiotics to which resistance can develop. But if antibiotic resistance isn't caused by mutation and has a supernatural origin, Why don't you explain EXACTLY how God does it......And why.

View Post



These Synthetic Antibiotics are still composed of Natural Compounds, because humans use these natural compounds, to create synthetic compunds.

Therefore, the Bacteria are still Synthesizing to what substances they can... at a loss, but not a mutation. Of course, if the AntiBiotic Disturbs the Bacteria in such a way that it causes the Bacteria to not by able to reproduce correctly... Resulting in a Loss of the ability to Protein Synthesis in Bacteria Reproduction, then that could ultimately result in a mutation.

If that's not happening, then it's not a mutation, and this seems to not be the case, because the Bacteria are clearly reproducing just fine after the fact of being attacked.

It's not a random mutation anyways " if "it is indeed a mutation, because the Bacteria is selecting what compounds that it can recognize to fight the AntiBody. Which is exactly what happened. You can call it a mutation, but it's not. Why? The bacteria aren't growing an extra arm, it's not growing a tumor, and it hasn't lost valuable proteins to fight the Antibody.

God Built the Bacteria to select the compounds that it can naturally recognize. If the Bacteria haven't in the past come into contact with these new AntiBiotic Chemicals then it will have to try synthesis with them anyways... but seeing as how Humans cannot actually create new Synthetic Antibiotics... then this is just basic Bacteria habit.

So, to sum this up as to why I say Humans can't actually make Synthetic Antibiotics per say... it is because Humans do not create matter, and they do not destroy it. Humans are creating what's available, and what's available to humans is also available to Bacteria.

I'm not saying that humans can't make what we call Synthetic, I'm saying that these substances used to create these Synthetic Antibiotics already exist. The materials/compounds/substances/matter... the ingredients to make these AntiBiotics already existed.

To not believe this, is to believe that Humans can create new Matter.

#69 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 04 April 2010 - 05:31 PM

The authors of the bible claimed that *God did it*  because at the time of its writing they had no other explanations!  And so they made up a story that appeals intuitively despite the fact that at the time people knew NOTHING about biology and very little about chemistry.

View Post


Exactly, but that doesn't mean that God couldn't do it. The authority of the Bible is believed to be divinely inspired by God anyways.

#70 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 04 April 2010 - 06:31 PM

The authors of the bible claimed that *God did it*  because at the time of its writing they had no other explanations!  And so they made up a story that appeals intuitively despite the fact that at the time people knew NOTHING about biology and very little about chemistry.

View Post

Rhan, you asked scott to give you an explanation about man coming from soil. He did really good.

(Scott)
Could men come from soil? Interesting, soild contains some of the exact same ingredients that is takes to make a human being, and most compost/soil is actually made up of dead matter, which was once living organisms, or humans... yes they actually have turned to soil.

Which brings up another interesting conclusion:

Plants get their nutrients from soil.

Herbivores get their nutrients from the plants, which recieved that nutrients from the soil.

Carnivores get their nutrients from the Herbivores, which recieved that nutrients from the plants, whom recieved that nutrients from the soil.

Now, when the Animals breed, and produce offspring... they created their offspring from the nutrients they ate, that helped build their cells, and actually kept them alive.

Where did this nutrients come from? It ultimately came from soil... So in all actuality we really did come from soil.

Soil, it's what helped bring you into this world, and it's what your going to be after your dead so the cycle of life can continue.


Evos are constantly talking about what evolution predicts, while they mock the scripture--yet here is a perfect prediction. Made by what you presume were hillside shepherds.

And no your wrong about the authors of the Bible having no other explanation. Moses who wrote Genesis was in line for the throne of Egypt and was very educated. He saw the glory of God on Mt Sinai, along with nearly 10 million Jews in the wilderness. You will instantly say that I wan't there, so how can I know.

This is exactly why you need to consider the power of God. If I have the Spirit of Christ living in me, then you can not disprove it.

If you just accept science as your source of knowledge, you'll be dependent on what your natural senses can see and your limited mind can fathom. To think that your mind can understand all things is nonsense.

The authors of the Bible were recipients of revelation. The apostle Paul prayed for Christians to have the spirit of revelation in Ephesians.

#71 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 04 April 2010 - 07:47 PM

You know what I always find fascinating about evo's, besides the fact that you can normally count on them being among the FIRST to bring up "RELIGION" or "GOD" or the "BIBLE" when discussing "SCIENTIFIC" issues. Is how they unwittingly undermine their own naturalistic premise when trying to "persuade" or even "argue" in support of the nonsense of evolution. What do I mean?

Well, if EVERYTHING is the result of "Natural" processes, as they believe or claim they have "evidence" of or for then what are they arguing about and why?

In other words. Doesn't evolution include our brains? Our minds? Consciences, etc? Yet they sit there and ponder as to why there are so many people who believe in a higher power? Well duh... "THEY EVOLVED THAT WAY!" Right? I mean, don't you even believe your own naturalistic premise??? What possible "other" reason can there be??? Think about it.

I've heard one evolutionist say it concerns them because we can change our minds. Yeah, well so what? Why do you even care about that? It's all just evolution anyways and we're all just going to meet our demise in the grave and none of this will matter anymore. See the difference with an evolutionist and a Creationist is that we "Creationists" have a good reason why we DO care and why it DOES matter. But as an evolutionist who doesn't believe in anything outside the physical, heaven, hell, God and Jesus, well then why do you care? And if you do care (which makes no sense to me from a naturalistic point of view), what is there to be done about it since we obviously "evolved" this way?

Think about that (using your more evolved brain than ours).

Not to be off topic, but I only mention this since the conversation in this post was nicely being debated on purely scientific grounds then, as per usual, an evolutionist brings in, well what about Noah, what about Adam's rib, etc. And I say, what about it? What does any of that have to do with the postings talking about antibiotics in bacteria???

#72 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 04 April 2010 - 08:37 PM

lol, do you not see any irony in your words????

"naturalistic ground rules".

View Post

You don't know what I'm talking about do you? Naturalism is a philosophy or worldview. It states that all things are explainable by natural causes. It is related to to physicalism which says only the physical universe is reality.

So no, there is no irony in my words. Your worldview determines how you view ANY and all data which is put before you, and what scientific questions you will ask, hypotheses you will state.

At least be honest AFJ, the rules of naturalism have no relevance for YEC or "creation science". The natural world doesnt even have relavance for YEC or "creation science". 

View Post

Again, I think you mistook naturalism for the natural or nature. If I said that nature or natural things have no relevance for YEC, then I would be saying God has no connection, or did not create the natural universe. Ironically, that is what you believe. So your point is invalid, and based on a misunderstanding of what I was saying.

If it did, why do you feel compelled, amongst other things, to explain genetic homologies as "common design", relying precisely on a deity beyond the limits of "naturalistic ground rules"???? Hmmmmm?

View Post

You seem to think that only evolutionary science can define the truth of a matter. For instance you would say that because there are similarities in something there is a common ancestor. First, in many cases the similarities are not adequate evidence when thinking in design mode.

Take the mud skipper. With a superficial look, coupled with the idea that amphibians descended from fish, one could easily presume that the mud skipper is an ancestor untouched by selective pressures and therefore a demonstration of evolution. However in design mode, and taking an internal look, one notes that the fins are not connected to the backbone like an amphibian's. This would be necessary for weight bearing. They act as fins in water and therefore are fish. They also have a special sac that contains water so they can breathe on land.

In design mode, one sees that the two features act together, making it hard to conceive that random mutation of both features happened simultaneously. And again the question, what would be a selective advantage of a water sac that is not functional?? Of course Ken Miller would just designate the precursor as a "tie clip." Unless you can think of a function for a precursor to the water sac, we are talking about a grand jump and many mutations at once in order for it to be selected for. Again it had to happen at the same time as the fins and muscles that push the mud skipper forward on mud.

Also, and this takes the cake. They have a special instinct to blow air into the mud "compartment" where the female has laid eggs. Without O2, the eggs will die. SO they swim to land through the mud tunnel they have constructed, get a breath of air, and swim back to give O2 to the eggs in an airtight mud compartment above the water level.

Where did this instinct come from? Did they read about oxygen in a chemistry book? Well an episode on Animal Planet says the mud skipper "knows" his eggs need air. No offense, but what a willfully ignorant thing to say! Animals like the mud skipper demonstrate "knowledge" without any knowledge at all. Do you really think the mud skipper "knows" that his eggs need air. Yet he has the knowledge and will to perform this action.

#73 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 April 2010 - 08:55 AM

I'm sorry McStone, I dont mean to avoid the questions, but my schedule is limited today.  The main thing is that you say macroevolution has been done en vitro.  Then when I ask for citation, you give me the usual spill about millions of years, and a list of books, who all will spout the same supposed jargon you gave me.  It is repititious indoctrination.


But AFJ, time constraints aside, thats not a valid rebuttal. There are many reasons why new genera will not evolve in a lab trial - all perfectly acceptable within an evolutionary framework. Macroevolution, not only has been observed, but fossil, phylogenetic evidence suggests that it is indeed a common occurence. Ive said before, the striking physical similarity between human and chimp genomes alone:

Posted Image

is more than enough to evidence large scale macroevolutionary patterns, especially when we know how these differences have occurred. We know chromosone 2 has fused into one, from some error in cell replication. We know that humans have evolved new genes since LCA. We know that observed mutation rates can - which cause microevolution - account for these occurrences, even if not directly observed.

The only alternative is the unsolicited speculation of "common design". The extension of an analogy - human designers to god as a designer, is unfortunately beyond our scope. He is god. I could argue, just as easily, (and i have), that economy of design has no relevance to him. Who is right?

At the very least, you must concede, god as left some very confusing evidence behind.

Ah yes McStone, your entire argument is quite invalid, yet again. I'm not wrong on the immune system, I'm quite correct, and you are quite obviously wrong.

Why are you wrong? Simple, Antigens are proteins. DNA is built of proteins. DNA contains memory from the Parents, and it is thus passed on to the offspring. Even though you are right about children having to build their immune systems. Some of the immunity is passed on from the Mother, but not all immunity... Which you do mention, and brings into nicely what I want to talk about. The immune system.


Scott, once again you have failed to read up about biology. By rights, i shouldnt have to respond to anything else you write. This is enough to discredit everything else you say:

Simple, Antigens are proteins. DNA is built of proteins.


this time, im going to actually take a quote, because, whenever i say your wrong, you digress into competitive banality.

Further evidence that DNA is the genetic material came from the laboratory of the biochemist Erwin Chargaff. It was already known that DNA is a polymer of nucleotides, each consisting of three components: a nitrogenous (nitrogen-containing) base, a pentose sugar called deoxyribose, and a phosphate


Cambell & Reece, Biology 7th Edition, (Benjamin Cummings Publishers, London, UK) p296.

would you like another?

The DNA molecule consists of a sequence of units, each unit, called a nucleotide, consists of a phosphate and a sugar group with a base attached


Ridley, Evolution, 4th Edition (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK) p23.

to top it off:

We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA). This structure has novel features which are of considerable biological interest.


Watson, J.D. & Crick, F.H.C. (1954). Molecular structure of nucleic acids. Nature, 171: 737-738.

(You know scott, the paper which actually suggested the structure of DNA).

So, when you say:

Simple, Antigens are proteins. DNA is built of proteins.


You are actually wrong scott. Completely and utterly wrong, about everything, and so spectacularly wrong, you should, by rights, be ashamed. A protein is made, fundamentally, from amino acids. DNA is as about as distant from a chain of amino acids as you can get.

Scott, you really dont know this. You dont know this, because you dont know the first thing about biology. You are got going to fool anyone, im sure even a few YECs must be reading the constant contradictions in your writing in embarassment. Dont worry, they wont tell you.

Scott, your knowledge of even the most fundmental truths in biology is lacking. Not only lacking, but out of date. The structure of DNA has been known for over half a century now. This, of course, has no relevence to you. Its just "evo-babble" again.

I wouldnt mind, but the sheer rubbish you have come out with:

"mcstone, you dont understand the breeding process"

Scott, you dont even understand what DNA is let alone how it programmes a new genotype, or how it can change over time. This is not a personal attack, nor arrogance on my part. Its simply pointing out the truth.

How could anyone expect to debate - arguments for and against a subject, and one as complicated as evolution- when ones knowledge of even basic biological concepts is so lacking?

How can you have enough arrogance to have the forgone conclusion that evolution has never happened, and will never happen, when you cant comprehend how it happened?

Scott, you are setting an appalling example for yourself (by showing a repeated failure to improve your debating tactics) but also your whole movement. You believe DNA is

built of proteins.


and you are a YEC. There are other YECs on this forum too. Do they think the same? Is there a danger of an erroneous conclusion being made about the YEC movement?

#74 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 05 April 2010 - 11:09 AM

Scott, once again you have failed to read up about biology. By rights, i shouldnt have to respond to anything else you write. This is enough to discredit everything else you say:
this time, im going to actually take a quote, because, whenever i say your wrong, you digress into competitive banality.
Cambell & Reece, Biology 7th Edition, (Benjamin Cummings Publishers, London, UK) p296.

would you like another?
Ridley, Evolution, 4th Edition (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK) p23.

to top it off:
Watson, J.D. & Crick, F.H.C. (1954). Molecular structure of nucleic acids. Nature, 171: 737-738.

(You know scott, the paper which actually suggested the structure of DNA).

So, when you say:
You are actually wrong scott. Completely and utterly wrong, about everything, and so spectacularly wrong, you should, by rights, be ashamed.  A protein is made, fundamentally, from amino acids. DNA is as about as distant from a chain of amino acids as you can get.

Scott, you really dont know this. You dont know this, because you dont know the first thing about biology. You are got going to fool anyone, im sure even a few YECs must be reading the constant contradictions in your writing in embarassment. Dont worry, they wont tell you.

Scott, your knowledge of even the most fundmental truths in biology is lacking. Not only lacking, but out of date. The structure of DNA has been known for over half a century now. This, of course, has no relevence to you. Its just "evo-babble" again.

I wouldnt mind, but the sheer rubbish you have come out with:

"mcstone, you dont understand the breeding process"

Scott, you dont even understand what DNA is let alone how it programmes a new genotype, or how it can change over time. This is not a personal attack, nor arrogance on my part. Its simply pointing out the truth.

How could anyone expect to debate - arguments for and against a subject, and one as complicated as evolution- when ones knowledge of even basic biological concepts is so lacking?

How can you have enough arrogance to have the forgone conclusion that evolution has never happened, and will never happen, when you cant comprehend how it happened?

Scott, you are setting an appalling example for yourself (by showing a repeated failure to improve your debating tactics) but also your whole movement. You believe DNA is 
and you are a YEC. There are other YECs on this forum too. Do they think the same? Is there a danger of an erroneous conclusion being made about the YEC movement?

View Post

Wow. Thou doth protest too much. The point was not built on whether DNA is made of nucleotides or proteins.

If you were trying to have an honest conversation, you would simply have said one line about the error Scott made and moved on to refute the point.

#75 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 April 2010 - 11:31 AM

Wow. Thou doth protest too much. The point was not built on whether DNA is made of nucleotides or proteins.

If you were trying to have an honest conversation, you would simply have said one line about the error Scott made and moved on to refute the point.

View Post



yes yorzhik, ive tried to for the past, what, 3 pages or something? This isnt a "little error". This is complete ignorance of a fundamental truth of biology. Scott believes DNA, of all things, is made from protein, which means he doesnt actually know what DNA is, what it does, what a protein is, how proteins are made, how proteins can change, and how changing proteins can cause evolution. If you cant understand DNA, you cant possibly understand evolution. This error informs and confirms his worldview - his incorrect worldview - dont you see?

Ignorance -> falsehood

Its not the kind of error you can move on from. How are evolutionists meant to carry on debating evolution when the opposition dont understand what they are actually arguing against?

One might ask Scott why he so convinced of his position when he doesnt know the alternative.
How can debating ever convince him otherwise?

YECs, too, should insist, for objectivity's sake, on participants being well-informed.

#76 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 05 April 2010 - 04:06 PM

But AFJ, time constraints aside, thats not a valid rebuttal. There are many reasons why new genera will not evolve in a lab trial - all perfectly acceptable within an evolutionary framework. Macroevolution, not only has been observed, but fossil, phylogenetic evidence suggests that it is indeed a common occurence. Ive said before, the striking physical similarity between human and chimp genomes alone:

Posted Image

is more than enough to evidence large scale macroevolutionary patterns, especially when we know how these differences have occurred. We know chromosone 2 has fused into one, from some error in cell replication. We know that humans have evolved new genes since LCA. We know that observed mutation rates can - which cause microevolution -  account for these occurrences, even if not directly observed.

The only alternative is the unsolicited speculation of "common design". The extension of an analogy - human designers to god as a designer, is unfortunately beyond our scope. He is god. I could argue, just as easily, (and i have), that economy of design has no relevance to him. Who is right?

At the very least, you must concede, god as left some very confusing evidence behind.
Scott, once again you have failed to read up about biology. By rights, i shouldnt have to respond to anything else you write. This is enough to discredit everything else you say:
this time, im going to actually take a quote, because, whenever i say your wrong, you digress into competitive banality.
Cambell & Reece, Biology 7th Edition, (Benjamin Cummings Publishers, London, UK) p296.

would you like another?
Ridley, Evolution, 4th Edition (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK) p23.

to top it off:
Watson, J.D. & Crick, F.H.C. (1954). Molecular structure of nucleic acids. Nature, 171: 737-738.

(You know scott, the paper which actually suggested the structure of DNA).

So, when you say:
You are actually wrong scott. Completely and utterly wrong, about everything, and so spectacularly wrong, you should, by rights, be ashamed.  A protein is made, fundamentally, from amino acids. DNA is as about as distant from a chain of amino acids as you can get.

Scott, you really dont know this. You dont know this, because you dont know the first thing about biology. You are got going to fool anyone, im sure even a few YECs must be reading the constant contradictions in your writing in embarassment. Dont worry, they wont tell you.

Scott, your knowledge of even the most fundmental truths in biology is lacking. Not only lacking, but out of date. The structure of DNA has been known for over half a century now. This, of course, has no relevence to you. Its just "evo-babble" again.

I wouldnt mind, but the sheer rubbish you have come out with:

"mcstone, you dont understand the breeding process"

Scott, you dont even understand what DNA is let alone how it programmes a new genotype, or how it can change over time. This is not a personal attack, nor arrogance on my part. Its simply pointing out the truth.

How could anyone expect to debate - arguments for and against a subject, and one as complicated as evolution- when ones knowledge of even basic biological concepts is so lacking?

How can you have enough arrogance to have the forgone conclusion that evolution has never happened, and will never happen, when you cant comprehend how it happened?

Scott, you are setting an appalling example for yourself (by showing a repeated failure to improve your debating tactics) but also your whole movement. You believe DNA is 
and you are a YEC. There are other YECs on this forum too. Do they think the same? Is there a danger of an erroneous conclusion being made about the YEC movement?

View Post



And again McStone, I shall refute you yet again, and quite simply. Amino Acids = Proteins. Protein Synthesis. Whenever i mention Proteins I am referring to their building blocks. Amino Acids. I'm sorry but this does not change the facts one bit. It's these molecules which have to be selected. When I mention Amino Acids I automatically include the DNA that was needed to construct the Protein. DNA is what makes Protein. DNA is a part of Protein, DNA is necessary to create Protein. So to appease you, specifically, yes the Amino Acids are thusly created by the Combinations of DNA nucleotide basis.

" DNA encodes information about the primary structure of ALL of a cell's proteins."

This process is called Protein Synthesis, when DNA and RNA molecules interact with each other to create certain Proteins. If these molecules are disturbed, or destroyed through radiation so that the sequence is confused, cancer will result, or a mutation rather. This is not what's happening with the Bacteria, the Bacteria are shifting the sequence in their DNA to better protect themselves against the AntiBiotic.

Yes McStone, you have not refuted my argument. I'm sorry, but you are absolutely incorrect. This just goes to show your ultimate bias, your ultimate know it all stance, and you have failed to directly refute my points.

To be more to the point the Molecules McStone, the (Molecules) Just forget about Amino Acids and specific labeling... it's common knowledge, you shouldn't have to point this out.

Yet you do, and it only shows the weakness in your own arguments. If I am mistaken that Amino Acids are the building blocks of Proteins then please say so. If I am mistaken that Amino Acids are constructed from Nucleotide Basis, contained within DNA, then please say so.

These Molecules are being selected, and you cannot refute that. Me calling DNA a protein has nothing to with the debate at hand. DNA makes proteins, proteins contain DNA molecules. So to say that DNA has nothing to do the Polypeptide Chains, or Amino Acids... is actually quite false, and innaccurate.

I'm sorry if I generalized DNA as a protein, but it has everything to do with the construction of proteins, and Protein Synethesis. Without DNA protein synthesis would be impossible.

I made the argument simpler with my generalization, but I do admit that it was incorrect of me state that DNA is a protein.

But you will also notice that wasn't the point I was making. So, in saying that, I want you to debate the points.

Stop Whining about my generalization of DNA being a Protein... ( a fundamental Protein Building Block actually). Address the Points.

So why do you think that you have not inherited DNA (Transferable information as my Biology Book calls it) from your Parents, or Ancestors McStone? Why do you protest against this absolutely true conclusion? Do you somehow hate your parents and don't want to be associated with them? alas this doesn't change the fact that you have inherited transferable information from your parents.

If you McStone, actually believe that you do not inherit, transferable information (DNA) from your parents... then that is far more a grave mistake than me Calling DNA a protein... it is in fact, a complete misunderstanding of the entire... and I do mean an >>>>entire/complete misunderstanding<<<< of the breeding process as whole.

#77 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 05 April 2010 - 04:44 PM

yes yorzhik, ive tried to for the past, what, 3 pages or something? This isnt a "little error". This is complete ignorance of a fundamental truth of biology. Scott believes DNA, of all things, is made from protein, which means he doesnt actually know what DNA is, what it does, what a protein is, how proteins are made, how proteins can change, and how changing proteins can cause evolution. If you cant understand DNA, you cant possibly understand evolution. This error informs and confirms his worldview - his incorrect worldview - dont you see?

Ignorance -> falsehood

Its not the kind of error you can move on from. How are evolutionists meant to carry on debating evolution when the opposition dont understand what they are actually arguing against?

One might ask Scott why he so convinced of his position when he doesnt know the alternative.
How can debating ever convince him otherwise?

YECs, too, should insist, for objectivity's sake, on participants being well-informed.

View Post



Eh hem McStone, DNA is protein, or rather it makes Proteins. As stated in my Biology book. Protein construction is made of a chain of amino acids ( which contain Nucleotide bases)... a Polypeptide chain. The Polypeptide chain Contains the ingredients of DNA. Those Amino Acids contain the Nucleotide basis from the DNA. As a matter of fact the Polypeptide Chain would not exist if it wasn't for DNA.

When I discuss these things... I automatically have to include Nucleotide Basis, Amino Acids, and Then Proteins. So I'm sorry that I said the DNA is a Protein, when I'm typing fast, I forget to include important things, but... what has already been pointed out... My mistake in generalizing DNA as a Protein had absolutely nothing to do with my argument. Why not honestly debate my points? You think I'm too ignorant to Of Course... Your Arrogance is shining bright McStone, because you didn't address my points, and because you didn't address my points, you didn't make a successful rebutal.

Of course you could say that you don't have to say that you made a successful rebuttal because you believe you are debating an idiot. Well, if that's the case then I can call your argument completely and utterly false, because within the same exact sentence that I said DNA is a protein... I also said that (DNA contains memory from the Parents). You said that it was absolutely incorrect when it is not in fact incorrect, but the fundamental bases for the Breeding Process.

Transferable Information... That's what DNA is, and that's how it is used. To say that this is absolutely incorrect, then I too could say that this discredits everything else you have to say.

I'm sorry if this broad generalization confuses you too much. DNA makes the protein, it is what makes up the protein. Amino Acids come from the combinations of DNA's nucleotide basis.

So, McStone, you falsely want to believe that Amino Acids have nothing to do with DNA... your error is plain as day McStone.

To say that Amino Acids are far from DNA is actually to believe that Protein Synthesis does not occur. Proteins and Amino Acids have everything to do with DNA, and I do mean that, because it is true... because if it were not true, Protein Synthesis would not be true either by default.

McStone, Protein Synthesis is a process when DNA and RNA interact to create Proteins using the molecules they contain. The fact is that I really do know this, and that you McStone are having an utterly hard time accepting that fact, and you are in fact having a hard time actually debating the points... which you didn't do.

#78 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 05 April 2010 - 05:03 PM

Wow. Thou doth protest too much. The point was not built on whether DNA is made of nucleotides or proteins.

If you were trying to have an honest conversation, you would simply have said one line about the error Scott made and moved on to refute the point.

View Post


Yorzhik you make a good point, and McStone totally missed it because he wanted to get technical, and try to define DNA... instead of actually debating the points given.

McStone is correct about Pointing out my error, and I'm sorry that I didn't see it, because my teachers have taught me better than that. I'm sorry that it's taking me a while to remember how DNA produces Proteins.

Ah, painful memories of having to make charts and memorize them. Charts of DNA interacting with RNA... Oh well, it was a silly obvious embarrassing mistake on my part, because my memory on the subject failed me for the moment.

Yes McStone, if it pleases you, I am embarrassed about it, but at least I admit it. I am not however embarrassed by the other points that I made, that were not directly addressed.

#79 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 April 2010 - 09:22 PM

Macroevolution, not only has been observed,


Thats comical. Earlier, you could'nt even provide an empirical example of microevolution by genetic mutation.

but fossil, phylogenetic evidence suggests that it is indeed a common occurence. Ive said before, the striking physical similarity between human and chimp genomes alone:


You haven'nt provided a single example of it happening once. The fossil record provides no evidence of evolution. Even ardent evolutionists such as Steven J. Gould confess that species in the fossil record show up abruptly and only show slight variations throughout their history in the fossil record.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
(Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)


"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never `seen' in the rocks.
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study."
(Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's erratic pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp.12-16, May 1977)


"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."
(Eldredge, Niles [Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History], "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p44)


"[W]ell represented species are usually stable throughout their temporal range, or alter so little and in such superficial ways (usually in size alone), that an extrapolation of observed change into longer periods of geological time could not possibly yield the extensive modifications that mark general pathways of evolution in larger groups. Most of the time, when the evidence is best, nothing much happens to most species."
(Gould, S.J., 1988, "Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness", Natural History, Vol. 97, No. 12, December, p.14)


Besides, hiding your theory in the fossil record, where it is'nt testable, is circular reasoning - not science.

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
(Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216)


And once again, a large gap in the genome of different genera within an order is a Creationists prediction. A chimp has more genetic information than humans (~12%) because it is more complex than humans "It has a baculum". How do you delete 12% of a genome in only 5 million years?

We know chromosone 2 has fused into one, from some error in cell replication.


And they are still human, too. Chromosone fusion is even evidence of a recent human bottleneck after the flood.

Again, it is entirely possible, quite likely in fact, that our human ancestors underwent a chromosomal fusion event during a population bottleneck in fairly recent history (i.e., within the past several thousand years at most), easily explaining the fusion of chromosome 2. This concept is supported by an article published in a 2003 issue of Nature by Rohde et. al. where the authors make the following argument:



"These analyses suggest that the genealogies of all living humans overlap in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular, the MRCA [most recent common ancestor] of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago [~3,000] in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors."



http://www.evolution...indpost&p=53050

We know that humans have evolved new genes since LCA.


No McStone. Evolutionists do not use such terms because they have to account for the origin of those genes, so they say "Abiogenisis is a seperate theory". Instead, they theorize, that genes have been added or deleted.

We know that observed mutation rates can - which cause microevolution -  account for these occurrences, even if not directly observed.


You do realize that was a contradiction, don't you? how can observed rates not be observable. Mutation rates have been empirically measured, not only for MtDNA, but nuclear DNA as well. And both give us ages that are expected by Creationists. How can you reconcile your assumptions against observed measurements that falsify them?

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=52826



Enjoy.

#80 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 06 April 2010 - 04:09 AM

Ah yes McStone, your entire argument is quite invalid, yet again.  I'm not wrong on the immune system, I'm quite correct, and you are quite obviously wrong.

Why are you wrong?  Simple, Antigens are proteins.  DNA is built of proteins.  DNA contains memory from the Parents, and it is thus passed on to the offspring.  Even though you are right about children having to build their immune systems.  Some of the immunity is passed on from the Mother, but not all immunity... Which you do mention, and brings into nicely what I want to talk about.  The immune system.



Hi, I hope you and McStone don´t mind when I participate a bit in this conversation.
I suggest to calm a bit down and get the discussion back on the factual points.
At first proteins don´t contain DNA or nucleotides and DNA doesn´t contain proteins or amino acids. These are rather different chemical compounds and have very different chemical behaviour, but they interact in the cell and work together to result in that what we call living.
Second, antigens aren´t necessarily proteins. Antigens are molecules recognized by the immune system as foreign.

Scott, I tried to get your point or points out of the quoted post, but I must admit I don´t rather get it. I try to rephrase what I think is your argument.

You do realize that the human immune system reacts completely on the DNA of it's white blood cells.  These reactions towards opposing proteins allows the DNA to react to the opposing Bacteria... it truly is battle of the DNA's.

The White Blood cells have to react with the Chemical compounds that make up the Bacteria... Which actually do make up the Bacteria's DNA composition.

Proteins reacting with Proteins... McStone, your mistake here is quite obvious.  Our immune system, has to react to chemical ( Protein Composition) of the Bacteria.

B cells, which create the Antibody, have to figure out the Chemical ( Protein DNA compostition ( amino acids) of the Bacteria.)  You actually refuted yourself in this post, because you forgot completely what has to happen for an Antibody to even be produced.  Protein recognition... it's all in the game, and without DNA, all of it would be impossible.  The B cells, would not be able to translate the Bacteria's Chemical Composition, therefore rendering them useless.

McStone, DNA is a very integral part of the immune system, and stating that DNA is nowhere in use in the immune system is so incorrect, that it will ultimately rip your argument apart.  Yes McStone, you have been exposed on this issue as well.

1. There is such thing as Genetic Memory, LOL you forget that you have your mother and father's genes.  Sorry McStone, but you are incorrect again.  If it wasn't information, you would not share traits with your ancestors... your Mother, Father, Grandmother, and Grandfather... the list goes on...  Transferable Information.  You say organisms cannot direct their own genes... Hold on a minute McStone, you are incorrect on this.  Your mother and father selected each other, and thusly selected a way to direct their own genes.  Same goes for animals,  The stronger more capable Males are selected by the Females, over the less competitive... most of the time.


There are two different kinds of immune response: inherited and acquired. Necessarily in the inherited immune response DNA plays an importand part because DNA is the medium by which you inherit a trait of your parents. In the acquired immune answer the DNA also plays an important part because the variable part of the antibodys are determined randomly through somatic rearrangement of the responsible DNA fragments.
I think McStone knows all of this and both of you are talking at across-purposes.
What exactly is your point here?

2. Mutations are passed through the breeding process...sometimes, but I did not disagree with you on this.  Mutations are actually completely different than Antibiotics... Radiation causes Mutations, Chemicals that destroy DNA composition Amino Acids will cause Mutation, because the some of the Amount of DNA ( Polypeptide chain is broken) is lost when it is shot through cells in the body.  When the cells loose this information, they begin to multipy incorrectly because they cannot transfer their information correctly... resulting in tumors/Mutations.  Mutations are caused by a disturbance. 

Transfer information  DNA, RNA. Nucleotide bases are disturbed.

Now, you may ask why are Antibiotics different then, because they are reacting to a disturbance... yes they are acting to a disturbance, because they used their Protein Synthesis to find a way to match chemical (Protein Composition/ you already know the composition amino acids which have to contain nucleotide bases from the DNA to even be contructed) of the enemy, so that it can help stop the production of certain functions of the Bacteria.  When the AntiBody has done this, the Bacteria try to find a way to Synthesis With proteins in the Immune system, so that they too can fight against the immune system.  DNA... it's all in the game.


Most mutations happen because of the quite perfect but not completely perfect copying process of the DNA, not through mutagens or radiation. Through mutations the DNA is not broken or parts of it lost (sometimes maybe), but the information in the chain has just changed.
I really don´t know what you mean by this sentence:

Mutations are actually completely different than Antibiotics...

The rest of this paragraph doesn´t make any sense for me, sorry.

3. Antibiotics are naturally occuring compounds ( molecules) a.k.a proteins ( amino acids), which are creating by using DNA.  If DNA wasn't a part of the equation, it would not work... recogintion of the foreign substances protein make-up is absolutely necessary.

The first antibiotics where naturally occuring, produced by fungi to fight off bacteria, but nowadays we have a lot of newly produced antibiotics. Most of the antibiotics aren´t proteins or even peptides, but the production of these are normally controlled by DNA, yes.

4. Antibiotic resistance is obviously NOT caused by mutation, because as can clearly be seen the selection of proteins ( amino acids Which have to contain nucleotide bases to even be constructed ) is used.  A switch.  No mutation has occured, it is simply natural.  When you take Protein Synthesis out of the equation, then you will not get Antibiotic resistance.  It's all in the Protein ( amino acid which have to contain nucleotide bases to even be constructed) Selection, A switch in the code... ( which as been demonstrated over and over, yet you still don't get it, even though it has been explained + demonstrated by the Bacteria and Immune Systems themselves).  Therefore, you are incorrect again.  Random Mutation doesn't have a thing to do with the Protein ( amino acid which contain Nucleotide bases to even be constructed) Selection, it is quite none-random, and it is quite actually not a mutation.
You ask me that I should actually try to debate you McStone... Really McStone?  You have got realize when you are being debated... such as now, and every single time you've been called out in your posts.  You say I don't want to learn anything?  Well maybe you need get back to books yourself, because as I have shown, your a little short in your own understanding.
[...]


Now we seem to get to a point. I try to rephrase your argument here.
You say antibiotic resistance is not caused by mutation, because the proteins involved are constructed on the basis of the DNA? What do you mean by that ominous "Selection", what is selected and by what? Why do you think random mutation doesn´t have anything to do with protein synthesis? What proteins do you mean at this point?
Ok, let´s explain it with some example of one kind of resistance (there are actually several kinds). You have an antibiotic (produced by fungi, other bacteria in vitro, synthetic or natural, doesn´t matter) which is harmful to a special kind of bacteria. There are actually three different main targets for antibiotics, but that doesn´t matter at this point.
The antibiotic kills the bacteria by a specific mechanism, but it has to have a minimum concentration in the bacteria to achieve that goal. Even the resistant bacteria are vulnerable to that antibiotic but to kill them you need a higher concentration.
Let´s say some bacteria have a random mutation in a specific enzyme which enables them to remove the antibiotic. The mutation happens in the DNA, more specifically in the gene which codes for that enzyme. It doesn´t matter if that gene did something different before it mutated. The gene gets read, translated in RNA and then in a protein which could break down the antibiotc maybe besides some other functions. Bacteria normally have a generation time of 20 minutes and their replication system is not very error prone so they mutate a lot (and I know what I talk about, it´s very frustrating when your bacteria in the lab mutate in the genes you need).
The bacteria with this new enzyme have now a better chance of surviving the antibiotic treatment and sooner or later all bacteria that are left are resistant, but they are still vulnerable therefore it is very important to finish the antibiotic treatment to also kill the resistant strain.
So where is the point you disagree with?

greetings




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users